project_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by listing the specific fields refreshed, but the word 'Refresh' could be slightly misleading without annotations and no further behavioral nuances (e.g., caching, network) are disclosed.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the verb, listing four relevant data elements in a single sentence. It is efficiently structured, though 'project identity' is somewhat vague.

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?

Despite having strong annotations and an output schema, the description lacks critical context: the meaning of 'path', when to use the tool, and any prerequisites (e.g., project must be open). It feels like a terse snippet rather than a complete guide for an agent.

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 only parameter 'path' has no schema description, and the tool description doesn't explain what 'path' refers to (e.g., project path, file system path). With 0% schema description coverage, the description was required to compensate but failed to do so.

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 the verb 'Refresh' with a specific resource and lists the data elements (revision, content hash, GUI-dirty state, project identity). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_create or project_import, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like project_open or resource_read. It doesn't mention prerequisites such as whether the project must already be open or imported, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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