continuation_read_project_note

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

With no annotations, the description fully owns behavioral disclosure. It warns notes are claims about code, can be out of date, and advises verification. It states 'without deleting' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly mention other side effects. It is transparent about the main caveat (staleness) which is critical.

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 front-loaded with the action, then adds a crucial warning and a recommendation. All sentences carry weight; it is slightly verbose due to the extended caution, but that is necessary context.

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 simple read tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and a key caveat. It does not describe the output format, but that is likely self-evident from the domain. The recommendation and warning make it fairly complete.

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% for both parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Read one continuation note without deleting it.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling continuation_read_and_cleanup, which would delete. No ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly directs users to prefer continuation_read_with_staleness for staleness information, and gives a strong condition ('CHECK ITS DATE AGAINST THE ACTUAL REPO') for when this tool is appropriate. This is excellent guidance for tool selection.

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