project_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool retrieves status information, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify behavioral traits like permissions needed, rate limits, or whether it's safe to call frequently. The description adds some context about what data is included but lacks details on how it behaves or any constraints.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and usage but lacks details on parameters and behavioral aspects. It is complete enough for a simple status retrieval tool but has gaps in parameter explanation and behavioral transparency, making it adequate but with clear room for improvement.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. Since schema coverage is low, the description does not compensate by explaining the 'project_id' parameter's purpose or usage. With no parameter information in the description, it meets the baseline for minimal viability but does not add value beyond the schema.

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 with specific details: 'Get project status including HANDOFF.md, recent changes, and file statistics.' It specifies the verb 'Get' and the resource 'project status' along with the specific components retrieved. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'project_status' alternatives, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Call automatically when asked about project status.' This gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool, indicating it's triggered by user inquiries about project status. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as 'list_projects' for listing projects without detailed status.

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