project_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no scope of "各层", no indication of whether results are cached, computed, or may be stale.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the one clause it contains is the vague term "各层" that a reader still needs resolved.

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?

With no output schema and only readOnly annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining what status data is returned and for which layers. It says nothing about either, leaving an agent unable to predict the response.

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 100% with only two optional path parameters, so the schema fully documents them. The description repeats none of that and adds no semantic detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a verb (查看) and resource (项目状态), so the basic action is clear, but "各层" (each layer) is undefined and the tool is not distinguished from close siblings like agent_status, skeleton_status, or staleness. An agent cannot tell from the text which status view this returns.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many other *_status and reporting siblings. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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