get_project_status

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

With no annotations, the description must signal side effects; 'Show' implies a read-only operation and 'Kanban view' suggests a formatted status representation. It does not explicitly state that it does not modify project data or mention prerequisites. This is adequate but leaves room for more transparency.

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 sentences total, with the purpose front-loaded and the parameter explanation separated under 'Args'. No filler or repeated schema info. This is an efficient structure.

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?

The tool is simple, has one required parameter, and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose and parameter semantics, but does not orient the agent among closely related siblings like get_project_progress and get_project_context. Given the low complexity, this is mostly complete.

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 only defines project_name as a string with 0% description coverage, so the description's 'Name or ID of the project' is valuable because it expands the accepted input beyond what the schema says. It does not provide format examples, but fully covers the single required parameter's semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') with a resource ('detailed status of a project') and identifies the view format ('Kanban view'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_project_context and get_project_progress, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_project_progress or get_project_context. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria. There are no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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