get_project_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real context beyond them: the return scope (workspace-level + project-level memories), the permanence of the data, and the recommended lifecycle moment to call it. It does not state anything about result volume or tiering behavior, which is the only remaining gap.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: purpose first, invocation timing second, alternative routing last. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description sketches the return content (workspace-level plus project-level memories) and the annotations carry the safety profile, which is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. The only shortfall is that it does not clarify why some pagination parameters apply only to the workspace tier.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including their tier scoping and defaults; baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the workspace-level tier concept implicitly ('workspace-level + project-level memories') and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get ALL PERMANENT KNOWLEDGE for a project') and enumerates the content types (decisions, conventions, accumulated context). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_context, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 an explicit trigger ('Call at session start (ACP Step 2)') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('For RECENT events, use get_context instead'). When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all covered.

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