Project status and recent spine-mcp steps

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it is instant, requires no CLI invocation, and aggregates state across file, editor, staging, and backup layers plus external changes. It does not disclose return shape or whether the snapshot includes timestamps, but for a read-only status probe this is solid added context.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the differentiating "Instant, no CLI" claim before the enumeration of returned state. The list is dense but every item earns its place; no filler wording.

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?

With no output schema, the description sensibly enumerates the state categories reported, which is useful. But the parameter surface is entirely unexplained and the relationship to closely overlapping siblings is left ambiguous, so an agent is only partially equipped to call this correctly.

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 carries the full burden for explaining the two parameters, and it largely fails: neither "project" nor "recent" is mentioned or explained. The phrase "outside changes since" only faintly implies a recency window for "recent" and gives no hint about valid ranges or what "project" identifies.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool surfaces: file state, editor window, staging copy, backups, spine-mcp's last steps, and outside changes. That is a clear, specific resource picture that lets an agent distinguish it from narrower siblings like spine_editor_status or spine_list_backups. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

"Call first when resuming work" gives an explicit, actionable trigger for invocation. However, it offers no when-not guidance and doesn't route the agent to the overlapping siblings (spine_editor_status, spine_project_info, spine_list_backups) for narrower needs.

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