get_project_game_snapshot

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established by structured data. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: responses are rejected if scope/authority is widened, and the tool 'never dispatches a worker, performs a live action, admits learning, or promotes a skill or policy.' This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure the annotations do not provide.

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?

Four sentences with zero filler: purpose, payload contents, accept scope/identity, and non-shacons. The headline verb+resource appears in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds distinct information. This is appropriately front-loaded and no sentence can be cut as speech.

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 one parameter, a rich set of annotations, and a present output schema, the description is nearly complete: it narrates the returned payload, clarifies identity/authority expectations, and states the negative non-actions. The only notable gap is that it never contrasts itself with the closely named sibling inspect_project_campaign, leaving an agent to infer which of the two to select; that mismark belongs to usage guidance though, so this dimension remains strong.

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 carry the parameter meaning, and it does. 'It accepts only the project UUID' declares the type/format of the lone project_id parameter, and the tenant-identity sentence tells the caller what NOT to pass (no company/tenant argument, no scope-widening). For a single self-describing parameter this is solid compensation for the empty 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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('canonical, exact-scoped snapshot'), and scope ('for one project'), and the rest of the description enumerates exactly which fields are reported (actual project campaign, evidence-backed wealth data, evidence availability, current mission, shadow skill trial, safe resource paths). This makes it easy to distinguish from the similar sibling inspect_project_game_campaign without opening either schema.

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 makes the usage context clear: it is the canonical read-only snapshot endpoint, addressed only by project UUID, with tenant/company identity supplied by authenticated MCP context. What it lacks is an explicit exclusion/alternative pointer — e.g., 'for a mutable or live view, use inspect_project_game_campaign instead' — so the when-not-to-use guidance is only implied.

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