Check project onboarding

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

The description adds significant operational context beyond the annotations. It specifically discloses how it operates (distinguishing configured files vs. live connections) and the functional scope limitation regarding card extension checks.

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 tightly written, avoiding jargon where unnecessary and front-loading the core function and its key functional boundaries.

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 that the tool is highly constrained by annotations (read-only, idempotent) and has complete schema coverage, the description provides all necessary behavioral constraints (e.g., 'separate check', 'does not send messages') for complete agent utilization.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the primary job is to add value. The description adds semantic value by explaining the purpose of the check, stating that 'Card extension authorization is a separate check,' which contextualizes the `taskCards` parameter.

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 purpose is explicitly stated: 'Read workspace trust and shared messaging authorization.' It clearly defines its role in 'project onboarding' and sets boundaries by stating it doesn't send messages or create conversations.

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 critical negative usage guidelines ('Does not send messages or create conversations') and specific context ('Distinguishes configured files from untested live connections'), which helps differentiate it from other communication or file manipulation siblings.

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