tandem_project_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses immutability of published snapshots, the expected_revision requirement, that publishing never changes active tasks, and that workers cannot access this publishing tool. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, action behavior, revision requirement, parameter routing, side-effect guarantee, and permission boundary. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the critical invariants and action-specific semantics. Minor omissions are the exact role of the context parameter and the limit parameter, but the schema provides enough defaults and names to make invocation feasible.

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. It adds semantics for action, expected_revision, context_id, and project_id, and hints at content types through 'rules, examples and settled decisions.' It does not explain limit or the full context object relationship, but the schema names and defaults reduce the gap.

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 clearly identifies the tool as coordinator-only product knowledge for source-backed rules, examples, and settled decisions, and names the three actions (publish, get, list). It conveys the resource and its primary operations, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like tandem_scope or tandem_publish_artifact.

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?

It states coordinator-only usage, explains when expected_revision is needed, specifies that get requires an exact context_id, and that list filters by project_id. It also gives cross-tool guidance to pass context_id to tandem_start/continue. It does not name an alternative tool or provide an explicit when-not-to-use instruction, so it stops short of a 5.

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