Get the current Clipkit project JSON

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no side effects, and the description aligns with that. It adds value by describing the output as JSON and mentioning the 'current' project, but it does not elaborate on how project selection works or any pagination or snapshot semantics. With annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate — it provides some context but not deep behavioral detail.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by immediate use cases. No redundant words, every sentence 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?

Given a simple read-only tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, output format (JSON), and typical usage. It doesn't explicitly mention the project_id optionality (which is in the schema) or return structure details, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100% coverage for the single optional project_id, including guidance on when to omit it. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level details, so it does not compensate beyond the schema. Baseline 3 for high schema coverage is correct.

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 returns the full current Clipkit source as JSON, with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('current Clipkit source'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like describe_project (which likely summarizes) and get_schema (which retrieves schemas), 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 clear use cases: inspect the project, pass to a render pipeline, or compose follow-up edits. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name when not to use it, but the guidance is actionable and appropriate for a lightweight read tool, making the context clear.

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