Resolve project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The phrase 'Report' and 'before writing' clearly indicate a non-mutating, read-only operation that does not create or modify notes, and it promises an explanation of the decision rather than just a result. This usefully communicates the tool's side of the contract.

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 deliver the core behavior and the intended usage moment with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded, and every word contributes to agent understanding.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is reported, how the decision is surfaced, and when to use it. The schema covers the parameter, and the sibling tools provide enough surrounding context to place this operation in the workflow.

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 only parameter, 'project', is fully described in the schema (including the omit-to-infer behavior), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds conceptual context by mentioning 'inference,' but it does not need to add parameter-level details since the schema already handles them.

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 a specific verb ('Report'), a concrete resource ('which project folder notes will go to'), and the method ('how that was decided'). It distinguishes itself from sibling note-manipulation tools by framing this as a pre-write decision check rather than a note operation.

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 says 'Use this to check the inference before writing,' giving a clear usage context tied to the write workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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