Project status

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description carries a lower burden. It does add value by enumerating the payload: interview progress, per-section written/stale/missing states, how documents will be written, and the next step. It stops short of describing output shape, ordering, or what 'stale' means operationally.

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 conditional clauses, front-loaded by mode, with no filler. Every phrase maps to a distinct piece of behaviour or returned information.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers both call modes and the kinds of content returned, which is enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is conceptual (what 'how documents will be written' actually contains), which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description has to carry the meaning of the single optional projectId, and it does: absence means list all projects, presence means per-project detail. That is the key semantic an agent needs. It doesn't say what format a projectId takes or what happens if an unknown id is supplied.

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 splits the tool into two clearly named modes: a bare call lists all projects, and a call with projectId returns interview progress plus section states (written/stale/missing) and the next step. That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings such as archforge_capacity or archforge_config, though it never names a verb for the tool itself and relies on its title 'Project status' for the framing.

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 the condition that changes behaviour (projectId present or absent), which effectively tells the agent when each mode applies. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as archforge_capacity for progress metrics or archforge_config for settings, so tool selection is left to inference.

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