switch_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose the not-found behavior (listing available projects), but it does not mention side effects or what 'active context' means for subsequent operations. The behavior is simple enough, but some transparency is missing.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a concise behavioral note. No redundant wording; every part adds value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequately complete: it covers purpose, prerequisite, and error behavior. It could be more explicit about the return value or persistence of the switch, but it is not lacking in essential context.

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 schema describes projectName as 'Exact project name to switch to' (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context: the project must have been previously initialized, and if not found, a list of projects is shown. This enriches the parameter's meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Switch the active project context') and the resource ('different project that was previously initialized with init_project_graph'). It also mentions a fallback behavior (listing available projects if not found), which adds specificity and distinguishes it from sibling tools that query state.

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 implies the use case: when you need to change the active project context, and it specifies the prerequisite that the project must have been initialized first. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough given the sibling tools.

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