Retrieve the complete active project state for a broad memory summary or status check, while using knowl_query for specific factual questions.
Get the full current active state of the project. Use for broad project-memory summaries, status checks, or full-state requests; prefer knowl_query for specific factual questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxChars | No | Maximum markdown characters; defaults to 3000. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.23.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope distinction (broad vs specific) and implies a comprehensive snapshot, which is useful behavioral context. It does not detail output structure or potential cost, but with annotations covering the main trait, this is adequate.
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 front-loads the main purpose and then gives usage guidance. No wasted words, and the alternative is mentioned efficiently.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering safety, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, and how it differs from the main sibling. The output format is implied by the parameter description (markdown). Nothing essential is missing.
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 sole parameter maxChars is fully described in the schema (max, min, default, and meaning), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no extra parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gets the full current active state of the project, and explicitly contrasts it with knowl_query for specific factual questions. The title 'Whole-project memory overview' reinforces the purpose, making it unambiguous and distinct from siblings.
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 explicitly says to use it for broad summaries, status checks, or full-state requests, and directs to prefer knowl_query for specific facts. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.