status

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe non-mutating call, so the description's main addition is naming the categories of information returned. It offers no further behavioral context—no scope limits, cost, or staleness caveats—and an output schema already exists to describe the payload shape.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that names the return contents in order of importance, with no filler or redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema available to describe the returned payload and readOnlyHint covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient for a trivial single-parameter read tool. It only falls short on when-to-use routing against sibling tools.

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?

There is a single parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden of explaining project_path but says nothing about it. Because project_path is a largely self-evident identifier, this is an acceptable baseline but not compensating for the coverage gap.

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 pairs a clear verb with the resource and enumerates the three components returned (detected project type, key files, recent dir listing), which an agent can grasp immediately. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like list_directory or get_config, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as list_directory, get_config, or get_logs. The agent is left to infer that 'project status' is a summary operation rather than a file listing or config fetch.

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