foundation_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context: it explains the output can be 'readable Markdown' or 'compact Session Brief', and emphasizes the data is 'authoritative'. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permission requirements beyond schema hints, or how the output structure differs by format. This adds value but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Read' and directly naming the resource and output variants. There is zero fluff; every phrase ('authoritative', 'readable', 'compact') earns its place by sharpening the tool's nature.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the core purpose and output formats. However, it omits practical notes such as the allowable roots restriction (mentioned in schema) and does not describe what happens when the project_root is invalid or not found. Given the simplicity, it is nearly complete but leaves minor edge-case questions.

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 50%: project_root has a clear description, but format is only an enum. The description's 'readable Markdown' and 'compact Session Brief' add mild semantic shades to the format values, but it does not explain the relationship between the format parameter and the output, nor any constraints beyond the schema. The enum itself already enumerates the choices, so the added value is modest.

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's function: 'Read the authoritative Foundation JSON, readable Markdown, or compact Session Brief.' It names a specific verb ('Read') and resource (Foundation), and enumerates the three output formats, effectively distinguishing it as the canonical read tool among the sibling analysis and mutation tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or explicit comparisons to sibling tools like foundation_analyze_project or foundation_scan_changes. The word 'authoritative' hints at being the primary read source, but no direct alternatives are cited.

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