Get 2ools project operating context

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

Annotations already indicate a safe, idempotent read. The description adds meaningful behavioral guarantees: the packet is 'source-free', includes an 'exact frozen Curator snapshot', and explicitly states historical Rulebook text is never guessed after revision changes. This exceeds what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, followed by a compact list of returned components. No redundancy or filler.

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 enumerates the packet's components, covering the return content even without an output schema. The revision-safety note adds important behavioral context. Minor ambiguity around 'source-free' and lack of example usage prevent a 5.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (project_id and include_governance_text). The description adds no further parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the burden; baseline 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 clearly states the tool reads a 'source-free operating packet' before acting and enumerates its contents (active version, exact frozen Curator snapshot, Rulebook context, review attention, artifact index, work queue, and current activity cursor). This is a specific verb+resource with a defined scope, and it inherently distinguishes the tool from narrower siblings like get_project.

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 phrase 'before acting' provides clear timing guidance, and the packet composition implies it is the go-to for pre-action context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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