Status summary

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: output is a one-screen markdown summary, includes specific content types, and is prefixed by an embedded-skill banner. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise comparison to two siblings. Every clause earns its place.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with a rich annotation set, the description is complete: it specifies output format, content scope, banner behavior, and distinguishes from the most relevant alternative tools. Nothing essential is missing.

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 the schema is trivially complete. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 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 clearly states the tool produces a 'One-screen markdown project summary' covering work in progress, alignment triggers, and invariant notes, with an embedded-skill banner. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings stats and check, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting other definitions.

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 names the historical counterpart (stats) and the pass/fail invariant tool (check), giving clear context for when status is the right choice for a current project snapshot. It does not explicitly say 'use this when you need current state' but the differentiation is strong enough to infer the intended usage.

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