Project Snapshot

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only (readOnlyHint: true). The description adds context about the specific data returned (git state, language, etc.) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or error states. With good annotation coverage, the description provides marginal added value.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the verb and resource. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool has a specific purpose, an output schema (so return values are explained there), and the description covers the key components (git state, language, package manager, bounded file tree). No additional context is needed.

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 50% (only 'path' has a description; 'maxDepth' has constraints but no description). The description does not add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Given moderate coverage, the baseline score of 3 is 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get local project context: git state, language, package manager, and a bounded file tree.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('local project context'), and the detail on what is included (git state, language, package manager, bounded file tree) distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'project.index'.

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 when to use the tool: 'Use this before editing a project.' This provides clear context for usage. Although it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for an agent.

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