get_project_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' signals a read-only operation and the parenthetical lists what the summary covers, which is useful, but the description does not explicitly confirm it only reads and does not modify project state.

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?

One sentence, direct verb, and front-loaded purpose. Every word contributes to specifying the tool's resource and output scope.

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 single-parameter getter, this is nearly complete: it gives the input, the result type, and the main summary components. It lacks exact output format details, but the parts in parentheses adequately convey what the summary contains.

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 0%, so the description must do the work. It refers to 'a project,' which maps clearly to the required project_id parameter, but it does not add detail about the ID format, whether the parameter is a UUID, or how to supply it beyond the schema's required flag.

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 clear operation ('Get') and resource ('a project'), and further defines the result as a 'summary status' covering branches, open changes, and active workspaces. The 'summary' qualifier helps distinguish it from more detailed tool siblings, though it does not explicitly call any of them out.

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 phrase 'summary status' implies this is for high-level project overview rather than fetching a single branch, change, or workspace, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_workspace or list_changes. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are named.

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