project_docs_route

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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: a cap of five dated records and the match criterion (title, summary, or source sharing terms with the task). The term-matching selection explains why results are non-deterministic, consistent with idempotentHint=false, though it doesn't specify ordering or what happens when nothing matches.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the trigger condition ('Given a task') and then the output. Every clause carries information — verb, resource set, cap, and matching rule — with no filler.

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 does the work of explaining the return contents (AGENTS.md, .issueops docs, up to five dated records) and does so adequately for a read-only router. The remaining gap is project resolution across the three path-like parameters and result ordering, which matters given five optional parameters.

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 coverage is 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds some meaning for 'task' by revealing it is used for term matching against document titles, summaries, and sources, but it says nothing about how repo, cwd, or workspace_root interact for project resolution.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: given a task, return AGENTS.md and .issueops documents relevant to that task, plus up to five dated caution/ADR records. It is clearly distinct from siblings like project_docs_read or docs_index in that it performs task-based routing rather than plain reading, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'an agent should read before working' implies the usage context (pre-task orientation), which is a helpful cue. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance and does not point to alternatives such as project_docs_read for reading a specific document or docs_index for enumeration, leaving the agent to infer routing between them.

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