project_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what each section contains and that detail=true widens every section, but it omits the default time window, the likely cost/size impact of detail=true, and any performance or read-only context beyond the implicit read nature.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the concise-by-default mode and the escalation/follow-up options are front-loaded and immediately actionable.

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?

For an aggregator with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned sections so the agent knows what to expect. Minor gaps remain: the default 7-day window is not restated and the cost of detail=true is unstated, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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%, so the schema already defines days, detail, and directory. The description adds that detail widens every section (essentially restating the schema) but gives no extra meaning for directory or the days window, so 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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns — most-run programs, build/test/lint commands with pass rates, last-day failures, and agent sessions — so an agent knows the resource and scope without opening a schema. It also names the sibling tools (learn_from_failures, what_failed, find_agent_session) that cover one topic in depth, sharply distinguishing this aggregator from 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?

It states the default mode (concise), the escalation path (detail=true), and the follow-up tools for deeper single-topic work, which is clear routing guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions, so it is strong but not complete.

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