rx_project

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is handled. The description still adds real behavioral content by enumerating what the card returns (team grouping, gates, plans with Ids), which matters since there is no output schema. "Только чтение" merely restates readOnlyHint and no auth/permission details are given, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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 content is front-loaded with the returned field set, then usage, then sibling routing, which is a sensible order. It is dense but not padded, with the only redundant element being "Только чтение" repeating the annotation.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing exactly what fields the card contains, and it covers purpose, trigger, Id sourcing and sibling alternatives. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete, though return volume/pagination behavior is unstated.

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 100% and the schema already explains the id parameter (number after # in an rx_projects row). The description repeats the same sourcing rule ("Id проекта берётся из rx_projects") without adding format or edge-case detail, so the baseline 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 names a specific resource (project card) and enumerates the exact data it exposes: stage, planned/actual deadlines, manager, customer, team by groups, gates, description and plan Ids. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by stating that the project Id comes from rx_projects and that the work tree is shown by rx_project_plan.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ("what state is the project in and who participates in it") and routes the agent to rx_projects for the Id and rx_project_plan for the work tree. No explicit when-not-to-use exclusions are stated, so it falls just short of a 5.

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