Read back where the ProAbono installation stands

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly signals a read operation by saying it 'reads' a file and reports status, and it proactively clarifies that a never-installed project is reported as an answer, not a failure. It could be more explicit about having no side effects, but the language strongly implies read-only behavior.

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 information-dense and well-structured: purpose and output scope first, usage guidance second, and an important edge-case clarification last. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without wasted 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?

For a status-reading tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains what the tool reports, when to call it, and how a missing installation is handled. It does not describe the exact response format, but the behavioral categories given are sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result 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_root` has 100% schema description coverage, including its default behavior and when to pass it. The tool description does not add parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it reads `.proabono/installation.json` and reports installation status. It enumerates the exact categories of information returned, which clearly separates it from sibling tools like `install_insite` and `verify_insite_installation`.

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 gives explicit usage timing: call at the start of a session before generating anything, and whenever a developer asks what is left to do. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide selection among siblings.

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