project_lookup

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by revealing FTS5's stemming limitation and the need for prefix wildcards. However, it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior on missing projects.

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, efficiently conveying the core purpose and a vital usage tip. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and a key technical detail. It could mention the output format (past decisions/notes) but is sufficient for an agent to use the tool.

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 has two parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds context about the query needing prefix wildcards and the project being a target project, but does not fully explain each parameter's format or constraints.

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 purpose: to reuse an approach from another project by searching its history. It distinguishes itself by focusing on external project reuse, unlike sibling tools like context_search which operate on current context.

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 advises when to use the tool (reusing approaches) and provides a technical tip about prefix wildcards due to FTS5 stemming behavior. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare to sibling tools.

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