project_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context about the sources of data (active memories, task checkpoints, indexed sources), which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core function concisely. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's high-level purpose but lacks detail on how context is assembled, how parameters influence behavior, or what the output schema contains. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered externally, but parameter semantics remain vague, making the description minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description provides no explanation of the parameters (projectId, task, budgetTokens). The agent must infer semantics from parameter names and schema constraints (e.g., min/max for budgetTokens), which is insufficient for precise invocation.

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-resource combination ('Assemble task-focused project context') and enumerates the sources (active memories, task checkpoints, indexed sources), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like memory_list (just lists memories) or project_health (checks health).

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 explicit statement on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is for gathering comprehensive context, there is no direct guidance on exclusions or when a more specific sibling (e.g., memory_list) should be preferred.

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