ctx_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool returns project metadata but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it reads from a local file or remote source, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the project is not initialized. The output schema exists, but the description could add more context about side effects or state.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists key information. Every word contributes meaning, and there is zero verbosity.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, no annotations needed) and the existence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the return fields and purpose. However, it could mention if it requires the project to exist or what the fallback behavior is, but for a getter tool with zero complexity, this is sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description's job is minimal. It adds value by listing the exact fields returned (name, language, framework, root, git status), which helps an agent understand the output without inspecting the output schema.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'current project information', and lists the specific fields returned (name, language, framework, root, git status). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ctx_search (searching) or ctx_git (git-specific operations).

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: to retrieve current project context. It provides no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions among the many sibling tools, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent would know to use it for project metadata, not for searching or other operations.

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