protect_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the entire workflow: scans risks, picks a preset, obfuscates, byte-compiles, runs import-smoke-tests in isolated subprocesses, and returns verified:true/false. It also mentions writing a private de-obfuscation mapping alongside the output. It does not specify permissions or failure modes, which is a minor gap, but overall it provides substantial behavioral context.

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 three sentences long with no filler. The first sentence is a dense, front-loaded summary of the entire workflow. The second adds a key behavioral detail (mapping placement). The third provides concise usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (8 params, 1 required, output schema present) and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the core workflow and usage well. It explains the main steps and expected outcome. It does not detail the output schema or all parameter behaviors, but the output schema likely handles return value documentation. Slight gap in parameter descriptions, but overall complete enough for an AI to determine appropriate invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides high-level context for some parameters (e.g., 'path' as project path, 'preset' as framework-aware, 'verify' as the verification step, 'save_mapping' for the mapping file), but it does not explicitly detail all 8 parameters. For example, 'timeout', 'output_dir', 'verify_cmd', and 'trace_marker' are only briefly implied. This is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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: 'protect a Python project end-to-end AND verify it still works'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is a combined protect+verify operation that 'returns verified:true/false', not just a transform. The context of sibling tools like check_obfuscation_risks and generate_pyobfus_config reinforces that this is a higher-level, end-to-end tool.

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 explicitly advises when to use: 'Use this when the user wants to protect/obfuscate before shipping and expects a green check, not just a transform.' While it doesn't name specific alternatives, the sibling list implies that other tools are for more granular steps (e.g., risk scanning or preset generation). The guidance is clear but could be more explicit about when not to use.

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