get_project_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly frames the tool as a read-only health probe that 'returns' metadata and even specifies the content. It could additionally state that it has no side effects or how it behaves when the server is down, but the 'returns' wording and verification purpose make the read-only nature evident.

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?

Two tightly scoped sentences: the first defines the output with specific detail, the second gives usage guidance. Nothing extraneous is present, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter health-check tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns (with possible values), when to call it, and why. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema coverage is vacuously 100%, and there are no parameter semantics for the description to add.

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 specific purpose: returns server health metadata for the active project, listing exact fields (storage engine variants and write arbitration mode). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it should be used before get_state or update_state, so an agent can tell it apart.

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 usage context: 'Use this to verify the egc-memory server is running and responsive before calling get_state or update_state.' This names the sibling tools that follow it and the exact condition for using this tool, leaving no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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