get_project_status

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses output fields but not side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or behavior on missing projects. Being a read operation is implied but not stated. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond purpose.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundant wording. Efficient and well-structured, with the essential parameter explanation in the second sentence.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main purpose, parameter semantics, and expected output fields. Lacks error-handling context and explicit usage guidance, but adequate for basic invocation.

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 has no description, so description compensates by explaining `project` as a project key with example 'workmate'. Gives clear semantics for the single parameter, exceeding what the schema provides.

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 verb 'return' and resource 'project status', lists output fields (company, health, phase, summary, note count, open action items). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_projects (lists projects) and get_note (fetches a note).

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?

Implied usage is for retrieving status of a specific project, but no explicit when/when-not or alternatives are mentioned. Does not clarify when to use list_projects instead or exclude other tools. Lacks explicit routing guidance.

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