project

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

The description does disclose non-obvious behavioral traits: projects are globally keyed by name, structured data persists in projects.db, and large documents go to the Wiki as project_spec pages. However, with no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and still does not explain action-specific consequences such as whether init overwrites, archive mutates, or recall reads.

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 short and front-loads the storage model with minimal filler, but the opening label 'Universal Primitive' is not informative. The brevity is achieved by omitting essential operational semantics rather than by condensing them.

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 a tool with 10 parameters, two enums, no annotations, and no schema-level descriptions, the description only covers the persistence model. It does not tell an agent how to invoke init, update, archive, mapping, audit, decision, or recall, so the definition is materially incomplete for correct tool selection and 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%, so the description must compensate, but it only hints at 'name' via global keying and at 'decision' via the mention of decisions in projects.db. The seven action enum values, layer enum, and most optional fields like role, status, outcome, and details are left entirely unexplained.

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 phrase 'Universal Primitive: managing project-specific context and file mapping' identifies a clear resource and a general activity, but 'managing' is vague and does not convey the specific operation the tool performs. The action enum spans seven distinct behaviors like init, archive, and recall, yet the description does not summarize what the tool actually does at a callable level.

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 the sibling tools think, dream, forget, or evolve, nor does it explain when to choose one action over another. The statement that projects are global is a scoping fact, not usage guidance.

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