mindbase_status

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is helpful because no annotations are provided. However, it does not disclose return structure, whether the tool may read configuration files, caching behavior, or possible failure modes. It carries some of the burden but not the full behavioral context.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the resource type and immediately lists the key data points. There is no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

Given the low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description presents enough detail for an agent to understand what data the tool returns and that it is read-only. It could mention whether a projectId is required or how errors behave, but the core usage context is adequate.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single projectId parameter, including a default to the current project. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's clarity.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Project dashboard' and lists the specific data it reports (build time, line counts, contributor stats, operations, file counts), clearly distinguishing it from query/search tools among its siblings. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'retrieve' or 'get', but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as get_pulse, list_recent, or list_review_cards. The 'read-only' note hints at safe usage but does not clarify which scenarios call for a project dashboard.

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