get_project_context

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns an 'overview' implying a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, mention any prerequisites (like a selected project), or describe error cases. While the description is not misleading, it lacks explicit behavioral details that an agent might need to infer safety and preconditions.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's core function and then a usage example. There is no redundancy or filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding scope and applicability, achieving high conciseness with proper structure.

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 covers what the tool returns (list of components) and when to use it. It does not explicitly state whether a project must be selected beforehand, but the 'selected project' phrasing implies that context, and sibling selection tools exist. Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete, though it could have mentioned response format or potential errors.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no structural information to augment. Per the calibration, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no extra parameter semantics (none needed), but it does not contradict anything. Since all parameters are nonexistent, the description's clarity about the operation compensates adequately.

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's function: it provides a 'Full overview of the selected project' and lists the contained elements (details, tasklists, milestones, users, tags). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_tasklist_context or get_milestone_context, which focus on specific sub-entities. The verb 'get' plus resource 'project context' is specific and 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?

It explicitly gives a usage scenario: 'Use this for broad questions like 'what's the state of this project''. This conveys when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, though the existence of focused sibling tools implies that. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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