scan_project

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that findings become drafts tagged source "scan" with file/line evidence and confidence, that approved values are never overwritten and surface as conflicts, that raw observations land in .steam-mcp/scan/, and that it is read-only toward the game project. This also reconciles the readOnlyHint=false annotation (it does write steamworks.yaml) with the read-only posture toward the engine project.

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?

Front-loads the core action and outcome, then adds the conflict rule and read-only scope before a compact Args block. Every sentence carries distinct, decision-relevant information with no redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the side effects (drafts, conflicts, observation storage) an agent needs before invoking. Nothing material is missing for a two-parameter scan-and-merge tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does, defining path as the folder holding steamworks.yaml and source_dir as the engine project folder when it differs from path. The subtle relationship between the two is spelled out, though no format/example detail is added.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (scan the game project) and its exact output behavior (merge findings into steamworks.yaml as drafts). The tool's distinct role — auto-discovering and drafting, versus a sibling like import_from_steamworks which pulls from Steam — is clear without opening a schema.

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 the merge/conflict semantics well but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as import_from_steamworks or init_project. Usage is implied by the behavior rather than stated as an explicit when/when-not rule.

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