vibemap_get_project_context

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries less burden. It adds that the tool retrieves context and lists included components, which is consistent. No behavioral surprises are omitted for a read-only retrieval tool.

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 with no unnecessary words. The first sentence defines the action and content, the second provides context for use. This is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's value.

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 informs what the tool returns (project context with listed components) but does not address the output format or structure, which is absent from the output schema. It also fails to explain the boolean parameters' role in filtering. For a tool with 6 parameters, more detail is needed for complete understanding.

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?

Only one of six parameters (projectId) has a schema description; the five boolean parameters lack description. The description mentions they 'include' components but does not explain their effect on the response. With 17% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving agents uncertain about parameter usage.

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 specific verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'full context of a VibeMap project', listing included components (features, user stories, personas, pages, database schema). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools that focus on sub-resources. The usage guidance 'Use this before building a feature' reinforces the tool's role.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'before building a feature to understand all the specs.' It implies that for specific details, one should use the corresponding list tools, though it doesn't name alternatives. This provides clear context for selection.

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