Longhand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's function and output format (structured summary with specific components), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or performance characteristics. It adequately covers the core behavior but misses advanced operational context.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first explains what the tool does and its parameters/return value, the second provides usage examples. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 tool with 4 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, and output components. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the exact structure of the returned summary or error cases.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'Takes a project name (fuzzy match)' which aligns with the schema's 'project' parameter description, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('Get the current status') and resources ('project'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns a structured summary with git history, linked episodes, and conversation segments. This differentiates it from tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_project_timeline'.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool with concrete examples: 'when someone says 'pick up where we left off on X', 'what's the status of X', or 'where did we end on X''. This provides clear context for usage without needing to specify exclusions or alternatives.

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