discover_project

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It explains the search order ('first checks for an exact match, then searches up to 3 parent directories') and implies a read-only lookup, but it omits important details such as what happens when no match is found, the exact return format, and any potential side effects. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized with clear section headers (ESSENTIAL FOR, WHEN TO USE, WORKFLOW) and bullet points, making it scannable. The content is relevant, though the WORKFLOW section could be considered slightly extraneous for describing this specific tool. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description should explain return behavior and error cases. It covers usage context and workflow but does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., project details or an ID) or how it handles a missing project. This leaves gaps for a tool at this complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the search algorithm ('exact match', 'parent directories'), which enriches the understanding of the 'path' and 'max_parent_levels' parameters beyond their schema definitions. This additional context justifies a score of 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Discover a CoordMCP project by searching from a directory path.' It specifies the verb ('discover'), resource ('CoordMCP project'), and the search mechanism (directory path, exact match, parent search). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_project_info (which retrieves project details) and create_project.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a dedicated 'WHEN TO USE' section with concrete scenarios, such as 'Starting work in a project directory' and 'First step when joining an existing project.' It also provides a workflow that positions this tool as the initial step in a multi-tool process. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or name alternatives, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.