plainweave_project_context_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly states the tool is read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose any other behavioral characteristics, such as return format or performance impacts. No contradictions with annotations.

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, no filler, front-loaded with purpose and safety declaration. Every word 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?

An output schema exists, so return values are presumably documented elsewhere. The description covers the high-level purpose but does not elaborate on what 'project context' includes or what 'capabilities and authority boundaries' mean. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, this is adequate but leaves room for more detail.

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%, and the description does not mention the single parameter 'include_contracts' beyond the schema. The parameter's purpose and effect remain entirely unexplained, leaving the agent to guess.

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 reads local Plainweave project context, capabilities, and authority boundaries, and explicitly marks it as read-only. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like plainweave_baseline_get or plainweave_requirement_get, which focus on different aspects.

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 usage for reading contextual information without side effects (read-only), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. With 16 sibling tools, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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