Get project state

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates what the tool returns (full state including next steps), which is appropriate for a read-only state retrieval tool. The description could add more detail about response format or side effects, but it covers the essential behavior.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the return content and ending with a usage directive. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 simple getter tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what the tool provides (full state, including next steps) and when to call it. It lacks details on the exact structure of the returned state, but the enumerated components help set expectations.

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 input schema has one required parameter, projectId, with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention the parameter or provide any context beyond the schema. While the parameter is self-explanatory from its name and type, the description adds no semantic value to help the agent understand how to supply the project identifier.

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?

Description clearly states it returns the full state of an App Factory project, enumerating specific components (phase, interview answers, design choices, work packages, recent audits, and next steps). This distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like get_next_questions, get_design_choices, and get_work_package, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 instructs to 'Call this whenever unsure how to proceed,' giving a clear directive for when to use this tool over alternatives. This is strong usage guidance in terms of situational context, even if it doesn't enumerate exclusions.

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