get_project_context

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format ('Markdown string') but omits details on compression strategy, staleness, or performance traits. Adequate for a read operation but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy; efficiently communicates purpose and output format. Every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so description must explain return value, which it does (Markdown string). However, lacks details on compression meaning, size limits, error cases, or performance. With no annotations, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are clear. The description adds minimal value by restating 'filter the briefing' and 'scope results', but does not go beyond schema semantics. Baseline 3 is fitting.

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?

Description specifies exact resource ('briefing of the project') and action ('returns'), lists contents ('active modules, recent decisions, and open problems'), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_open_problems and get_recent_decisions which are more specific.

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?

Description implies use for a high-level overview but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With 11 sibling tools, no rationale for choosing this over alternatives is provided.

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