wiki_get_project_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool as returning information, implying no side effects, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or other traits.

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 two sentences and front-loads the purpose, but it omits parameter details, which would be expected even in a concise format.

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 a single parameter with zero schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the output but not the input, and does not cover error conditions or usage nuances.

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% and the tool description does not mention the single parameter 'projectId' at all. No explanation of its purpose, format, or behavior if omitted.

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 it returns a brief overview of project knowledge, listing specific contents (assets per type, top-tagged categories, recent updates). The phrase 'project primer' distinguishes it from sibling tools like wiki_get_briefing or wiki_get_flow_context.

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?

'Useful as a project primer' implies when to use (quick overview), but there is no mention of when not to use or explicit alternatives among siblings.

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