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

Despite the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral context by enumerating the complete set of returned information: systems with goals/acceptance/build status, coupled systems, pending Inbox changes, recent decisions, open-rejection count, active users, recent_changes for session handoff, and a task to claim. This goes far beyond the annotation's simple safety hint.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the powerful 'ONE-CALL orientation before you build' hook. While it's a single long sentence with arrows and plus signs that can be slightly cumbersome, every piece of information earns its place and the structure makes the flow of inputs to outputs clear.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and complex return payload, this description thoroughly covers what the tool returns, including systems, build metadata, coupled systems, inbox changes, decisions, and recent_changes. The only omission is an explanation of project_id, but overall the description gives a complete picture of the tool's function and output.

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 enriches the meaning of `files` (paths about to touch, mapped to systems) and `task` (briefs milestone systems), aligning with and expanding on the schema descriptions. However, `project_id` is left undocumented in both the schema and description, and with 67% coverage the description does not fully compensate for that gap.

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 it provides a one-call orientation before building, accepting files or a task and returning owning systems with detailed context. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the get_project_meta→get_system→get_build_region dance it replaces, making its unique role obvious.

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?

It explicitly says 'before you build' and instructs to pass files you're about to edit or a task. It also names the exact alternative multi-call sequence it replaces, giving clear when-to-use guidance and differentiation from sibling tools.

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