get_project_context

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: empty dependencies with a null indexing timestamp mean unknown coverage, dependencies belong to the project but not necessarily every package, and truncations should be inspected for omitted text. These are non-obvious caveats an agent would otherwise miss.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then compact sentences covering sections, empty-result semantics, ownership scope, and truncation. No filler, though the fragment style makes it slightly terse rather than flowing.

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 carries the return burden and does so reasonably: it names the summary contents (descriptions, languages, counts) and flags truncation and unknown-coverage cases. It stops short of explaining limit/offset behavior, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it partially does by explaining the three section values and that packages/direct_dependencies are paginated. It says nothing about limit/offset ranges or the project_id semantics, leaving meaningful gaps at 0% coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read live Science context for one project'), which clearly separates it from the software search/lookup siblings and the project-listing sibling. It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly names a sibling as an alternative.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance for the section parameter ('Choose packages or direct_dependencies for paginated details'), which tells the agent when to pick each mode. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a named alternative tool.

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