Pack project context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output size range (200-2000 tokens) and contents, implying a read-only operation. Missing details include potential side effects (none expected), auth needs, and whether it caches or reads files beyond what's listed.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core output and purpose. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 simplicity, the description covers the main use case and output. With 5 optional parameters and no output schema, it provides enough context for an agent. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of whether it modifies any state), but overall adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; parameters are already well-documented in the schema.

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 generates a lightweight markdown project brief with specified contents (tree, npm scripts, README/AGENTS excerpt, optional git diff). It distinguishes from general repo reading or Repomix but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools context_stats and session_brief.

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 advises using the tool 'at session start instead of reading the whole repo or running Repomix,' providing clear context for when to use it. It does not, however, state when not to use it or compare directly to sibling tools.

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