Read concise project or task context, including completed facts, pending gaps, and suggested next actions, to plan work without treating suggestions as execution authorization.
Read concise project/task context, completed facts, pending gaps and suggested actions. Suggestions are not execution authorization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | ||
| researchRef | No | ||
| experimentRef | No | ||
| selectionRefs | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context by naming the categories of context returned and explicitly warning that suggested actions are not execution authorization, which helps prevent misuse.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The caveat about suggestions is also placed immediately after the main purpose, where it is most useful.
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?
This is a complex tool with four parameters, nested reference objects, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema. The description gives only a high-level content summary and does not explain how the reference parameters affect the result, what selectionRefs do, or what the returned structure looks like, so it is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter. With four parameters, including nested reference objects such as researchRef, experimentRef, and selectionRefs, the description does not compensate at all for the missing schema semantics.
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, 'Read', with a clear resource, 'concise project/task context', and enumerates the kinds of content returned (completed facts, pending gaps, suggested actions). It is understandable on its own, but it does not distinguish this tool from nearby read-oriented siblings such as rws_record_get or rws_result_query.
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 does not say when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool to choose instead. The sentence about suggestions not being execution authorization is a behavioral caveat, not usage guidance, so the agent is left to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.