Project status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, but the description adds critical failure semantics: identity conflicts, projection failures, and exceed limit returns no partial record. It also clarifies reconstruction from persisted events, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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 purpose, followed by concise behavioral caveats. Every word earns its place, with no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and 100% parameter documentation, the description sufficiently conveys the tool's core behavior and failure conditions. It lacks usage comparisons, but that gap is covered by the usage_guidelines dimension, not completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a slight nuance by referencing 'limits below the complete population' which aligns with the limit parameter's documented behavior, but it does not provide extra 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 names the verb ('resolve', 'rebuild') and resource ('project identity', 'complete read-only run status'), which is specific and self-contained. It distinguishes from sibling status tools by focusing on project run status rebuilt from persisted session events, not lineage, session, or job status.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling status tools (e.g., ouroboros_lineage_status, ouroboros_session_status). The description does not mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the choice to the agent to infer from the name.

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