get_project_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly aligns with that. It adds behavioral context beyond annotations by mentioning 'bounded content' (likely the maxChars parameter) and 'missing-note reporting', which are useful traits not captured by the annotations alone.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word adds value, and it efficiently combines the core action with two key behavioral qualifiers.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: reading with content bounds and reporting missing notes. It does not detail the exact output format or error handling for unregistered vaults, but the key behaviors are sufficiently stated.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meanings. It only hints at 'bounded content' which loosely maps to maxChars, but does not explicitly explain the 'vault' parameter or what missing-note reporting entails. The schema itself provides constraints (default, min/max) but no semantic labels, leaving the description insufficient.

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 reads canonical project notes from a registered vault, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from generic note reads ('read_note') by mentioning 'canonical project notes' and 'missing-note reporting', but does not explicitly name alternative tools or contrast with siblings.

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?

Usage context is implied: one would use this tool to read project notes from a vault while imposing a content limit. However, no explicit guidance is provided on when to prefer this over siblings like read_note or get_project_activity, nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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