project_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly says 'metadata only,' enumerates the returned fields (working directory, adapter, description, tags), and states that it does not execute the agent. It does not mention not-found behavior or side effects, but as a read-only registry lookup this is a minor gap.

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?

The description is only two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the clarifying metadata-only warning placed immediately after. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics and the critical caveat that no agent dispatch occurs. The only notable gap is referencing 'dispatch_query' while the sibling list contains 'dispatch,' a minor naming inconsistency that could briefly confuse an agent.

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%, and the description only implicitly defines the name parameter as the project identifier by saying 'one project.' It does not state whether name must be an exact registered key or describe valid formats. Still, with a single required string parameter and clear context, an agent can infer the basic meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return the registry entry for one project.' It further clarifies that this is metadata only, distinguishing it from dispatch tools and removing ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives clear context that project_status is for metadata lookup, not execution, and explicitly directs work to dispatch_query for actually hitting the agent. It does not enumerate all sibling alternatives like list_projects, but the single-project lookup scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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