ddev_project_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves status and configuration, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, what format the output returns, if there are rate limits, or how it handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Get') and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying what is retrieved (status and configuration) and for what (a DDEV project).

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 moderate complexity (a status check with one parameter) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'status and configuration' entails, the format of the return value, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool with no structured metadata, more descriptive detail is needed to fully guide an AI 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_name' clearly documented. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of project names or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though no extra value is added.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current status and configuration of a DDEV project'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ddev_list_projects' (which lists projects) or 'ddev_exec_command' (which executes commands), leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific status tool over alternatives.

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 versus its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'ddev_list_projects' for listing projects or 'ddev_exec_command' for executing commands, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual cues for selecting this status-checking tool over others in the DDEV toolset.

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