getProjectContext

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which is not contradicted. The description adds that results are cached and can be controlled via maxAgeMs and force parameters. It mentions skipping cold-start re-exploration but lacks details on cache invalidation or what 'cold-start' entails.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. Front-loaded with core purpose and key differentiator (cached, skips re-exploration). Every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a reasonable overview of contents. However, it does not describe the return format or structure, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 covers all 3 parameters with descriptions. The description adds the list of content sections (active file, errors, commits, modules) that map to the sections parameter, but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 provides a cached session-start brief covering active file, errors, recent commits, and modules. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting caching and avoiding cold-start re-exploration. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like getProjectInfo or contextBundle.

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 implies use for a quick, cached overview to avoid recomputation. It does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or context where it is most appropriate.

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