Read a project's stored context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important behaviors: a project without context returns null, a non-existent project returns 404, and the call is free and requires kits:read permission. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent crucial expectations for handling responses.

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 yet dense with useful information. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: the first defines the content, the second gives usage timing, the third clarifies edge-case behavior, and the fourth states permissions and cost. No fluff or 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete for a read tool. It explains what the context contains, when to use it, what null vs. 404 mean, and the required permission. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the response appropriately.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter projectId is already described as 'Owned brand project id from list_brand_projects.' The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 reads a project's stored context and enumerates what that context contains (what it does, who it's for, design constraints, ruled-out options, screens, and foundation). It is specific with a verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling set_project_context by explicitly saying to read before that call.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: read before proposing anything for an existing project and before calling set_project_context, because set_project_context replaces rather than merges. It also clarifies the null vs. 404 distinction, which tells the agent when a project exists without context versus when the project itself doesn't exist.

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