check_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces this while adding genuinely new context: it does not mutate the keyring or audit log beyond a 'list' read, and it documents the exact error when no manifest exists. It stops short of describing pagination or the semantics of every returned field, but adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then routing guidance, behavior, and return shape in that order. It is dense and effective; slightly long, but each sentence carries distinct information rather than restating the name.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, safety profile, return payload shape (including the meaning of `ready`), and the failure case. With annotations covering read-only safety and the return values described inline in the absence of an output schema, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `projectPath` parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or default detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb and resource: comparing keys declared in the project's `.q-ring.json` manifest against the actual keyring. It explicitly distinguishes itself from `health_check` (scope-wide decay sweep, no manifest) and `agent_scan` (multi-project scans), so an agent can select it without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context ('is this project ready to run' gate before dev server, deploy, or onboarding) and names the two alternatives with the conditions that select them. Nothing is left to inference.

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