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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by outlining the return content (summary of capabilities, workflow, conventions). It does not contradict the annotation and provides concrete expectations for the agent, even though no safety or side-effect concerns apply.

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 compact: a two-sentence structure that front-loads the primary purpose and then elaborates on the return content. Every sentence contributes value, with no filler or 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?

The description is complete for a read-only informational tool with no parameters and an output schema. It explains what it returns and when to use it, leaving no gaps in the agent's understanding of how and when to invoke it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics; the baseline score of 4 applies because no parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%.

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 that the tool returns a summary of what Aurora can do, its workflow, and project conventions. It specifies the exact content (examples, free plan, creation-to-deploy process, code conventions) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on project data (e.g., get_project, list_projects).

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 states when to use the tool: "when the user asks what Aurora can do" and "before the first code change in an Aurora project." This gives clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it. Given the tool's unique role among siblings, the guidance is sufficient.

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