check_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so well. It explicitly states read-only behavior, notes the minimally invasive audit effect, details the JSON return shape including the meaning of 'ready', and gives the exact error when no manifest exists.

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?

Four dense sentences cover purpose, when to use, read-only safety, return format, and error behavior with no fluff. Information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description supplies all necessary context: usage, alternatives, safety profile, exact return fields, readiness semantics, and failure mode. Nothing important is missing.

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 schema already fully describes the single optional parameter, including its absolute-path requirement and default behavior. The description adds project-level context but does not materially enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 a specific action: compare manifest-declared keys against actual keyring contents. It also frames the tool as the canonical 'is this project ready to run' gate, which distinguishes it from broader or multi-project sibling tools like health_check and agent_scan.

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?

Explicit usage scenarios are given: before starting a dev server, deploying, or onboarding a teammate. It also names alternatives and when to prefer them: health_check for scope-wide decay without a manifest, and agent_scan for multi-project scans with auto-rotation.

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