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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that the result is the 'full' current source, implying no filtering or partial views, and emphasizes the 'current' stateful nature of the project. It does not detail error behavior when no project exists, but the added context is valuable.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the core function and then listing useful use cases. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 tool is simple with no output schema, but the description, combined with strong annotations and a well-documented parameter, gives enough context for an agent to understand what it returns and when to use it. It could mention behavior when no project exists (e.g., error or empty result), but this is a minor gap given the low complexity.

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 100% and the single parameter's description in the schema is detailed, covering when to pass it and when to omit. The tool description itself does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Return the full current Clipkit source as JSON') with a clear resource ('the full current Clipkit source'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like 'describe_project' by emphasizing raw JSON output for inspection, rendering, and composing edits.

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 gives explicit use cases: inspect the project, pass to a render pipeline, or compose follow-up edits. It does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., preferring describe_project for a summary), but the use cases are clear enough to guide selection.

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