get_project_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly states the tool is read-only ('读取', 'Read'), and specifies the scope ('只含该项目的历史'), implying no side effects. Missing details like authentication or rate limits, but these are minor for a read operation. The description is transparent enough for safe selection.

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 well-structured with bilingual sections and clear headings (用途/目的, 注意/Note). It is concise (~100 words) and front-loads the purpose. A small improvement could be removing redundant phrasing, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 only one parameter, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics (minimally), and behavioral traits. It mentions what the tool contains (history of that project) but does not describe return structure, which output schema likely provides. It is sufficiently complete for agent selection.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description only says '项目文件夹路径。 / Project folder path.' which adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's type string. It does not clarify expected format (absolute/relative), or provide examples. This is insufficient for a parameter-rich tool.

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 explicitly states the tool reads a knowledge snapshot for a specific project and contains only that project's history, using specific verbs and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like get_user_context and save_project_snapshot, clarifying its scope.

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?

Provides clear when-to-use guidance: '想了解某个项目之前的技术栈、已知问题、协作次数时调用' (Call when you need a project's previous tech stack, known issues, notes, or collaboration history). It also explicitly mentions two alternatives: get_user_context for user-level context and save_project_snapshot for writing, making the usage context unambiguous.

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