Get Onboarding Status

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the requirement 'Requires authentication' and clarifies the content returned (setup steps complete and next steps). This goes beyond the annotation, though it doesn't cover error cases or rate limits.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, authentication requirement, and usage context. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It covers purpose, auth, and use case. It doesn't mention error behavior or null cases, but those are less critical for a simple status query.

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 coverage is 100% for projectId, and the parameter description in the schema is clear. The description doesn't add additional semantics beyond mentioning 'a ULink project' and 'after creating a project', which does not add actionable meaning to the parameter itself.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get the onboarding progress for a ULink project, including which setup steps are complete and what to do next.' This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like get_project by focusing on onboarding status and next steps.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this after creating a project to guide users through setup.' This tells the agent when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Could benefit from naming get_project as an alternative for other info.

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