get_project_scope_resolution

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add real value: it discloses the caching side effect, declares read access, and names the return shape (project_id + scopes list). However, it omits cache invalidation/TTL behavior, permission requirements, and whether the cache is shared or per-call, which matter for a tool whose primary action is 'cache'.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope ordering, then the access level and return contract. Minimal waste, though the ADR-002 citation is a reference an agent cannot act on.

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 re-explained, and the parameter is fully covered. The remaining gap is guidance on when/why to invoke it, which leaves the definition adequate but incomplete for a non-obvious domain concept.

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 single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the optional 'project-' prefix). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Resolve and cache') and resource ('a project's effective scope chain'), plus the ordering ('most-specific first') and payload ('each scope's dynamic attributes'). It is distinguishable, though 'effective scope chain' and the ADR-002 reference are jargon that assumes domain knowledge, and no sibling tool overlaps this niche anyway.

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 states 'Access level: read' but gives no indication of when an agent should call this versus other project/rule tools, nor any prerequisite (e.g. that scopes are needed to compute effective rules). Usage is left entirely to inference.

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