aimfp_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by mentioning it 'gathers data from multiple tables', implying a potentially expensive operation. However, it does not disclose further behavioral traits such as performance impact or rate limits.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

While the description captures the high-level purpose, it lacks detail on the return format or content. Given no output schema, the agent would benefit from knowing what 'comprehensive project state' includes (e.g., list of tables, aggregated summaries). This gap makes it somewhat incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with the sole parameter 'type' fully described (three levels, default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states it 'retrieves comprehensive project state' and acts as an 'orchestrator' gathering data from multiple tables. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve specific data (e.g., get_project, get_settings). The verb 'retrieves' and resource 'comprehensive project state' are specific and non-tautological.

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 implies usage context ('for AI to determine next steps') but does not explicitly state when to use this orchestrated status versus individual getter tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer without clear guidance.

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