obter_contexto_projeto

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for transparency. It discloses the detection mechanism (.gestaotarefas.json or Git) and the conditional disabled behavior, but does not specify what happens when disabled (e.g., returns an error, null, or a flag) or whether any side effects occur. It appears read-only but this is not explicit.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key details. Every word contributes no fluff or redundancy, making it an excellent example of efficient specification.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. However, it omits explicit information about the return value or what occurs when the MCP is disabled, which would be helpful for an agent to act on the result.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (diretorio_path) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline score of 3 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's purpose: it identifies the active project based on the working directory and checks whether the MCP should operate. This specific verb+resource combination (identifies project, checks operation) distinguishes it from sibling tools like listar_projetos or criar_demanda, which handle project/task management.

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: use it to determine the active project and whether MCP is enabled (e.g., Prefeitura projects are disabled). It doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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