project_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that three distinct data sources are combined into one response, but says nothing about selector precedence (path vs project_id) or behavior when neither is supplied.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. The brevity comes at the cost of the usage and parameter detail an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but for a 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage and two alternative selectors, the description should clarify how path and project_id interact and what recent_limit does. That guidance is absent.

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% and the description mentions none of the three parameters. 'path', 'project_id', and 'recent_limit' (which controls how many memories come back, directly relevant to the 'recent memories' claim) are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and enumerates the resources returned: registered project context, git status, and recent memories. This distinguishes it as a composite/aggregate tool relative to siblings like git_status, project_get, and memory_recent, though it never explicitly says it aggregates them.

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?

No guidance on when to use this composite tool versus calling the individual siblings (git_status, project_get, memory_recent) directly, and no mention of prerequisites or which selector is needed. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and listed outputs.

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