get_project_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only (reads registry), explains data source, and details enrichment from folder cards. It does not mention rate limits or performance, but the behavior is well covered.

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 concise: four sentences plus an Args line. It front-loads the purpose and structure is clear with sections. No unnecessary words.

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 one parameter and an output schema exists, the description covers the purpose, data source, parameter semantics, and enrichment behavior. It is fully sufficient for correct agent usage.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It does so effectively with an Args section explaining project_id supports partial matching and empty string means all active projects, adding significant meaning 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 states the tool returns 'Status of your registered projects' and specifies it reads the project registry (not disk folders) and adds task completion counts. This distinguishes it clearly from filesystem-related tools like 'scan_project_folder'.

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 explains the data source (registry vs. folders) and behavior for empty vs. specific project_id, giving context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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