wrap_project

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

Since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly describes the side effect of adding subdirectories to search paths. It could mention potential overwrite behavior or authentication needs but is otherwise transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The args section adds clarity without redundancy. It could integrate the args inline but remains efficient.

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?

Given the single parameter and presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, what directories it looks for, and the outcome. It could mention validation of directory structure or prerequisites for completeness.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that fully documents the 'project_dir' parameter, specifying it must be an absolute path to a project root. This adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema which only provides a title and type.

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 registers a project directory's pipelines, sandboxes, and types with the swarm, specifying the action, resource, and effect. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'wrap' by focusing on project directories.

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 explains that after wrapping, resources become discoverable by all swarm tools, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives to siblings.

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