project_view

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so credit goes to what the description adds: that the project persists 'between conversations', that the target may be a project, a site folder, or a .ged file, and what each mode returns ('one record with its family and sources'). No pagination or size caveats for the log, which is the main omission.

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?

Purpose and source types lead, the mode list and the default-mode instruction follow — front-loaded and free of filler. The first sentence is long and packing an em-dash aside plus a colon list makes it denser than it needs to be, but nothing is wasted.

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 5-parameter, multi-mode tool with an output schema (so return shape needn't be described), the description covers all three source types, all five modes, and the recommended entry mode. Remaining gaps are minor: no guidance on `lang`, and the empty-`project` listing behavior lives only in the 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?

Schema coverage is 60% (id, query, project documented; lang and what are not). The description compensates heavily for `what` by expanding all five enum values and what each returns, and reinforces the id/query linkage. Only `lang` receives no explanation anywhere.

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?

Specific verb ('Read') plus resource (research project / gene-archive site folder / GEDCOM tree), and it enumerates the five modes matching the `what` enum, so the agent knows the surface area precisely. It falls short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from siblings that sound overlapping (project_log for the log, audit_tree for 'tree checks'), leaving those boundaries to inference.

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?

Gives one explicit when-to-use rule: 'Start every session on an existing project with what=summary' — a genuinely useful default. It does not state when to prefer search, log, or checks over each other, nor point to project_save/project_transfer for the write side, so 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.