Query Project State

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys only that this is a cross-project read; it says nothing about prerequisites (e.g., whether the target project must be registered or in the same group), latency, caching, or any failure modes.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the motivating use case. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first.

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 return values need not be explained, and the enum is fully documented. However, with no annotations and a cross-project query that likely has registration/grouping prerequisites, the description leaves meaningful operational context unstated.

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% and the query enum values are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'what another service is working on or its recent changes' loosely maps to the enum values but adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Query the current state of a related project') and adds intent ('check what another service is working on or its recent changes'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_cross_project_updates.

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 second sentence implies when to reach for it (inspecting another service's work or changes), but there is no explicit when-not or named alternative despite several overlapping siblings such as get_cross_project_updates and list_group_sessions. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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