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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not repeat that. It adds context about the content being 'persistent' and that 'index' is the default topic, which is useful. However, it does not disclose details like what happens if a topic is not found, or the exact format of the response (e.g., plain text vs JSON). Since annotations already cover safety, a 3 is appropriate—description adds some value but lacks behavioral depth beyond the schema.

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 two sentences: the first lists what the tool reads, the second gives a clear usage instruction. No fluff, every word earns its place. It front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with actionable guidance, making it highly scannable for an AI agent.

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 simplicity (single optional parameter, no output schema, benign read operation), the description is nearly complete. It explains the tool's role and how to invoke it. However, it could mention what happens with a specific decision ID (like returns that decision) but that is implied. The lack of output schema means the description should hint at the format, but since the schema already covers parameters, this is still rated high.

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 each topic value. The description adds a little by mentioning 'index' as default and that 'decisions' and 'plans' are list-only, which is not in the schema. It also explains the purpose of the parameter ('What to read'). Since schema does the heavy lifting, a 3 is baseline, but the extra specification of list-only and default raises it to 4.

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 the project's persistent AI context and lists the specific content types (index, project description, constraints, decisions, plans, memory). It distinguishes itself from siblings like record_note and record_decision by emphasizing it is a read operation, and it differentiates from list_context by targeting specific context areas. The verb 'Read' plus the resource 'persistent AI context' is specific and actionable.

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 explicitly instructs to call with no arguments at session start to orient, which is a clear when-to-use guideline. It also implies that for listing all context, you might use list_context, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives. However, the instruction to use at session start is a strong usage signal, and the sibling list_context likely covers the 'when not' implicitly. The guidance is clear and actionable.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description is fully consistent with that. It adds useful behavioral context by specifying the scoped folder and that sizes and dates are included, which helps the agent know what to expect beyond the annotation.

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, clearly worded sentence that immediately states the action, target, and output contents. No wasted words.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema available, the description is complete. It names the exact folder and the output attributes, and the annotations plus output schema cover the remaining context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no burden for the description to explain. Baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all files in the project's ai_context folder') and adds output details ('with sizes and dates'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_context, which likely retrieves a single file, and record_note/record_decision, which are write operations.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for listing all context files in a specific folder, which implies its use when an overview is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for the simple listing case.

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

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations by specifying that the record is 'permanent' and an 'ADR', implying immutability and a formal structure. It does not enumerate side effects, but this is sufficient given the write intent and non-destructive annotation.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that cover purpose and usage—with no redundancy or filler. It front-loads the key action and includes a clear trigger condition.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for the tool's role (permanent ADR storage) and when to invoke it, and combined with the detailed schema, it gives a complete picture for the simple use case. It does not mention return values or errors, but that is not required given the lack of an output schema.

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 input schema already provides detailed descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Short decision title, max 80 chars.'), and the tool description does not add additional semantic meaning to the parameters. Thus, it meets the baseline for schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 that the tool records architectural or important project decisions as permanent ADRs, and specifies when to call it (upon making or confirming a significant technical choice). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like record_note and update_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?

The description provides a clear trigger condition ('Call this whenever you make or the user confirms a significant technical choice'), which guides usage. It does not explicitly contrast with record_note, but the phrasing implies a decision-specific use case, making the guidance effective.

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

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

Annotations are not contradictory: readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description conveys a write operation but doesn't discuss overwriting, updates, or whether existing entries get merged. It adds the intended persistence context, which annotations alone would not provide.

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?

One sentence, 3 clauses, completely dense, no filler. Packs a lot of informational words: resource, content categories, purpose. Well-formatted and front-loaded.

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?

There is an output schema, a simple model, and sibling tools that create no ambiguity. The description doesn't explain all edge cases like duplicates or retention policy, but with full schema and a single-purpose persist tool this reaches the high end of viable.

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 covers both params (content, category) at 100% coverage with descriptions. The 'category' description specifies which memory section it belongs to, and 'content' adds length/format limits. Description here slightly enriches the schema on intended use.

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 uses the specific verb 'persist' with the resource 'project note' and lists note types (gotcha, convention, learning, todo), distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage context, decisions, plans, or context lists. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions.

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 states the note should be remembered by future sessions, implying cross-session persistence. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over alternatives, but the category and memory intent provide clear context.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description's 'fully overwrite' confirms this but adds no major new behavioral detail beyond the 'mutable working documents' framing. With annotations present, the added value is modest.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and includes a meaningful comparison. No filler or redundant content.

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 complete parameter schema, annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, an output schema present, and sibling differentiation, the description is sufficient for a simple two-parameter tool. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, with detailed explanations for both parameters including slugification and file replacement. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create or fully overwrite a named project plan') with clear scope. It also differentiates from siblings by contrasting plans with decisions.

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 provides context that plans are mutable working documents 'unlike decisions', indicating when this tool should be used over the decision-recording alternative. It does not explicitly enumerate all sibling alternatives or state when not to use it for other tools.

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