get_project_context

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions caching and formatted output, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'formatted context' entails. Adequate but limited.

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?

Two sentences that are direct and front-loaded. The first states the action, the second gives usage guidance. No superfluous information.

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 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks details on return format, caching behavior, and error scenarios. It references sibling tools but does not clarify differentiation. Leaves gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds 'with caching' but does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No extra value.

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 it returns formatted context for a list of files and mentions caching. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying file paths, but does not explicitly compare to get_context_from_config or get_directory_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 advises 'Use this to load specific files into AI agent context with caching,' giving clear context and a specific usage intent. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use or compare with sibling tools.

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