Project info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant. The description does add real behavioral value by enumerating exactly which project state gets surfaced (unsaved-changes flag, active CHID, the deck path actually used for runs), letting an agent know this reflects live document state rather than a cached summary.

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 read operation, then the return inventory, then the usage rule — each sentence carries information. The trailing '[bulc-mcp rules] EVAC-002, GEN-006, GEN-010 — bulc_knowledge_search "<id>"' line is terse and slightly cryptic but ties the tool to a concrete follow-up capability.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing the return payload and does so field-by-field, which is the single most useful thing an agent could be told here. Combined with the usage trigger and the referenced knowledge-base rules, nothing material is missing for a zero-parameter read of current project state.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no documentation burden and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description mischaracterizes the calling convention.

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+resource ('Read the open project') and enumerates the payload precisely (file path, unsaved changes, CHID, deck path, stories with id/name/zMin/height/floorIndex, domain and mesh cells, per-module object counts). Very clear what it does. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_project_summary or get_config_summary, which a reader must disambiguate on their own.

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?

'Call this first in a session and after project_open' gives an explicit trigger condition and a concrete sequencing rule, which is exactly the kind of guidance a session-start tool needs. There is no stated when-not or exclusion (e.g., what to use instead mid-session), so it stops short of a full routing statement.

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