Reads the progress of an in-process project initialization and returns null when no initialization is running; reported counts indicate progress, not totals.
Read same-process project initialization progress, or null if no Init is running. Counts are progress, not totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (`readOnlyHint`, `idempotentHint`, `destructiveHint=false`). The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it is same-process scoped, can return `null`, and its counts represent progress rather than totals.
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 operation and followed by the important null and count semantics. Every sentence adds useful information.
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 zero-parameter read tool, the description covers scope, null behavior, and count meaning, but with no output schema it does not describe the progress object's shape or what the counts measure. It is adequate for invocation but leaves return-value interpretation partially implicit.
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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description appropriately does not invent parameter guidance.
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 read operation (`Read`) and resource (`project initialization progress`), and adds scope (`same-process`) plus a null condition. It is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with nearby siblings such as `layerfs_project_init` or `layerfs_operator_process_list`.
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?
It gives a clear usage context: read this when checking same-process project initialization progress, with `null` when no Init is running. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.