get_project_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool reads a local file and optionally calls an API, and specifies the type of data returned. This is sufficient for safe usage, though it could mention if any side effects exist (none expected).

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose in the first line. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No unnecessary words or details.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It thoroughly covers what data is read and the optional API enrichment. Parameter coverage is complete, and the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and inputs.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about the parameters (e.g., 'include_api_context' fetches BOMs/activity, 'include_file_listing' resolves file paths), but it largely repeats what the schema says. No significant additional meaning beyond 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 retrieves project context from a specific local file (.parts/config.yaml) and optionally from the Source Parts API. It lists the types of data retrieved (metadata, BOM locations, fabrication settings, DFM rules), making the purpose distinct from sibling tools like get_part_details or check_* 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 implies usage when project context is needed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. It provides clear context about local vs API data, but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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