project_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists the contents of the returned package and does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if the project_id is invalid. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 a single, focused sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without redundant words. It is well-front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the core function. However, the lack of differentiation from siblings like 'recall_project' and the absence of any usage context leave the description incomplete for an agent deciding between 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'project_id' parameter beyond its name and type in the schema. The description also does not clarify whether the ID is a numeric or string identifier, or whether it refers to a project name or internal ID.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and specifies the resource ('approved project knowledge sheets, tasks, decisions, handoffs, and collected memories') with the qualifier 'compact context package'. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'recall_project', which likely also retrieves project-related information.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'recall_project' or 'recall'. It merely states what the tool returns without any contextual use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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