Metis — Get Project Status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It correctly states it reads the registry and enriches from folder cards if available. It also clarifies it is not just looking at folders on disk. Missing explicit mention of side effects (though it's read-only) or permissions, but sufficient.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then details, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value without fluff. Perfectly sized for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, read-only). The description, combined with the output schema (which exists), covers all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The single parameter project_id is fully explained: empty string lists all active projects, specific (exact or partial) shows that one. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, which only shows a default value.

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 states it reads the project REGISTRY table, which is the source of truth for the dashboard, and adds task completion counts. This sets it apart from sibling tools that might scan folders or manage projects.

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?

It explains when to use an empty project_id (all active) vs a specific one, and mentions partial matching. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_project_categories or list_contexts, but the scope is clear.

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