project_status

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so a safe read operation is already established. The description adds a behavioral distinction between 'compact' and 'full' output, noting that full includes all current records and the task map. However, it does not explain how filters, limits, or revision handling affect behavior.

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 very short and front-loads the core action ('Read'). It avoids redundancy and extra words. The phrasing is compact but slightly awkward and could be clearer, yet it still earns its place without wasted content.

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?

The tool has a nested request schema, no output schema, and no parameter-level descriptions. The description only conveys compact/full modes, leaving out what 'current work' means, how project_id is used, how filtering works, and what the response looks like. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly beyond the default compact read.

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 documenting parameters. It only hints at the 'full' boolean and the 'task map' concept, leaving project_id, limit, since, task_ids, include_map, and known_plan_revision semantically undocumented. This is insufficient for a tool with seven nested 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 ('Read') and a resource ('current work'), and distinguishes between compact and full output modes. It conveys the tool is a read/status tool, which separates it from mutating siblings like plan_edit, work_update, and plan_publish. It is somewhat ambiguous what 'current work' precisely covers, but it gives enough of a functional identity.

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 implies this is for reading current work/status, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use project_status versus alternatives such as plan_read, work_history, or work_claim. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or which sibling tools are better suited for other scenarios.

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