Project review

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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false on a tool named 'review', which would otherwise be puzzling; the description resolves this by disclosing that any call may log usage, expire transient records and upload owed checkpoints. It also adds a prompt-injection warning that text from other projects is untrusted data, which is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations. It stops short of saying how much can be destroyed or what the expiry semantics are.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the entry-point role and payload size, then alternatives, then side effects and the trust boundary. No sentence is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes the return payload's contents and size, and it covers side effects and the untrusted-content rule for a single optional parameter. Minor gaps remain around what 'about 4 KB' implies when truncated and whether the checkpoint upload requires anything from the caller.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (projectRoot) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries its meaning as a folder or rbook:// address that is inferred. The description adds nothing about resolution order or what happens when it is omitted; baseline 3 applies.

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 states concretely what the tool returns — roughly 4 KB of sprint, work queue, recent decisions, portfolio signals and next steps — which lets an agent distinguish this digest from rbook_agent_onboard (fuller cold start) and rbook_context (search). The verb is loose ('Start ... work here') and the name 'review' is not self-explanatory, but the enumerated payload compensates.

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 positions the tool as the entry point for project work and names two alternatives with their roles: rbook_agent_onboard for the fuller cold start and rbook_context for searching the record. The selection conditions are clear, though it does not state when NOT to use it or when the fuller onboard is required over this lighter digest.

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