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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the 'bounded canonical' nature and server-derived health, but does not discuss potential caveats like rate limits, error conditions, or edge cases in pagination. No contradiction with annotations detected.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then efficiently lists the view options. It is somewhat dense with comma-separated items, but every phrase adds meaningful information without wasted words. The structure is acceptable given the need to summarize multiple view modes.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and multiple view modes, the description gives a useful high-level overview but omits important details: the exact shape of each view, how the default view works (though the schema sets default to 'contract'), and how pagination parameters (limit/cursor) apply across the paginated slices. It is adequate for a read-only tool with strong annotations but not fully complete.

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 compensate. It describes the view options semantically (e.g., 'active Goal Contract' likely maps to the 'contract' enum, 'goals', 'templates', 'scope-change', 'history'), and mentions 'paginated' and 'slice' which hint at limit/cursor usage. However, it does not explicitly map the items to the enum names, nor explain the 'server-derived health' and 'role capabilities' as being part of the contract view rather than separate views. This creates some ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('Project Mission') while enumerating the distinct view types (contract, goals, templates, scope-change, history). This sets it apart from siblings like get_project_context or get_project_activity, which cover different project aspects.

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 implies this is the tool for reading mission/goal stack data, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or exclude other tools. The title reinforces the niche, but no direct comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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