get_workspace_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (project info or null) and implies a read-only check, but does not explicitly state side effects (or lack thereof) or error conditions. It's transparent about the main outcome but lacks explicit non-mutating confirmation.

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 two sentences: the first defines the action and return value, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded, concise, and every word earns its place. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple getter with no parameters, no output schema, and a clear return behavior, the description is complete. It covers what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. There are no missing pieces that would prevent an agent from calling it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty. With no parameters, there is nothing for the description to add beyond what's already obvious. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain missing parameters.

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 a specific verb 'checks' and resource 'existing Stitch project associated with the current workspace/folder', and clarifies the return value (project info or null). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_project (which likely requires an ID) and list_projects (which lists all) by focusing on the workspace-level association.

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 says 'Use this at the start of a session to check for existing projects', giving a clear when-to-use context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., when you need a specific project by ID vs. the current one). It's good but not fully explicit about exclusions.

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