Get project status

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive nature, but the description adds critical behavioral details: private seed packets are counted but their contents are never returned, and the includeWarnings parameter is always ignored. This goes beyond the annotations, giving the agent a clear safety and privacy profile.

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?

Two well-structured sentences. The first is front-loaded with the purpose and lists all return contents efficiently; the second clarifies privacy behavior. Every clause delivers useful information with no redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates what is returned (counts, newest packets, briefs, warnings) and notes exclusions (private packet contents). For an orientation tool, this is complete enough for an agent to know exactly what to expect.

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 already fully describes the only parameter (includeWarnings) with the same 'accepted but not applied' note, so the description adds no new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100% and the description doesn't extend the parameter understanding.

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 a status overview: project name, store path, counts, newest packets, briefs, and warnings. It positions itself as an orientation tool ('Read first'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle specific operations like creating or listing items.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'Read first for orientation', signaling this should be used before other tools. This provides a clear when-to-use directive, which satisfies the criterion for explicit usage guidance even without naming specific alternatives.

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