check_project_structure

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Checks and displays' implies a read-only operation, and it specifies output theme (present/missing files), but doesn't disclose error handling, side effects, or behavior beyond these traits.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action, zero redundant words. All content is relevant and directly tied to tool's function.

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?

Tool has a single parameter, no annotations, but has an output schema. Description clearly defines purpose and scope, but could specify what constitutes a valid project structure or what 'missing' is compared against. Minor gap given simplicity and existing schema.

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?

Input schema already documents the sole parameter (project_dir) with 100% coverage. Description adds no extra detail about parameter format or meaning beyond what schema provides, warranting baseline 3.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Checks and displays' with resource 'structure of a Seestar project directory', clearly stating it shows present and missing files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle version checks, binary validation, and processing.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. Usage is implied as a diagnostic step for Seestar projects, but there is no statement about when to choose this over sibling tools like validate_siril_binary or process_seestar_mosaic.

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