Get project artifacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds a useful behavioral note: 'without executing or persisting their content,' which clarifies that the tool only reads and does not modify state. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like redaction defaults or content limits, which are partially in the schema but not highlighted. With annotations covering the core profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and provides a concrete list of document types. There is zero wasted wording, and every phrase adds value. This is a model of conciseness.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (7 parameters) and the presence of a complete output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It covers the scope ('bounded project documentation'), the non-executing behavior, and the parameter details are in the schema. The only missing piece is usage guidance, but that is captured under usage_guidelines. Overall, it is complete enough for a read-only, well-annotated 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema—it merely summarizes the tool's purpose. Per the baseline rule, a 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation entirely.

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 tool's purpose: discover and search bounded project documentation, listing specific document types. It uses a specific verb ('discover and search') and a clear resource, and it is not a tautology. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_project_context or get_project_catalog, which might also deal with project-level information, so it loses one point for not providing sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over search_code or get_project_context, nor does it give any exclusions or conditions. The agent must infer usage purely from the purpose statement, which is insufficient for effective tool selection among many siblings.

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