Get project context

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It communicates a read-only action via 'Returns' and adds a performance trait via 'Lighter than initialize_project_context.' Missing are edge cases like behavior when no context is stored or dependencies on workspacePath.

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 sentences, front-loaded with an action and resource, and includes a useful comparative note. Every word earns its place, 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the key aspects: what is returned and a comparison with a sibling. It could mention what happens when no stored context exists, but overall it is appropriately complete for the 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%, with the single optional parameter workspacePath fully described. The description adds no parameter-specific information but does not need to, as the schema already provides equal value.

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 a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the exact resource ('stored compact project context') along with its fields (name, technology, current task, status, summary, last agent). It also distinguishes from a sibling tool by noting it is 'Lighter than initialize_project_context'.

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?

Provides clear context by contrasting with initialize_project_context, implying use for a lightweight retrieval rather than full initialization. However, it does not explicitly state exclusions or how it relates to other context siblings like get_current_task or get_memory.

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