Check Onboarding Performed

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with by describing a check operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the timing ('before beginning to actually work on the project/after activating a project'), which helps the agent understand when to invoke it. However, it doesn't detail output behavior (e.g., what the check returns), though an output schema exists to cover that.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidelines. It is front-loaded with the core function and efficiently adds necessary context, making it easy for an agent to parse and apply.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, annotations covering safety, and an output schema to handle return values), the description is complete. It clearly explains what the tool does, when to use it, and aligns with annotations, leaving no gaps for the agent to misinterpret its role among siblings.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on usage context. A baseline of 4 is applied since it compensates well for the lack of parameters by providing clear operational guidance.

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 specific action ('checks whether project onboarding was already performed') and the resource ('project onboarding'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'onboarding' (which likely performs onboarding) and 'activate_project' (which likely activates a project), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'You should always call this tool before beginning to actually work on the project/after activating a project.' It specifies the exact context (pre-work/post-activation) and implies an alternative (if onboarding was performed, proceed; if not, use another tool like 'onboarding'), offering clear usage rules.

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