get_project_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses that the operation only reads composer.json/composer.lock and adds a useful performance trait (fast, composer-only vs slower deeper checks). It does not explicitly state there are no side effects or what happens on a missing/invalid path, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the output summary is front-loaded before the routing advice. Every clause earns its place by either describing the return or directing sequencing.

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 the description needn't explain return values, and it already covers the read source and its place in the tool sequence. The only residual gap is unspecified error behavior for a bad path, which is minor for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already defines 'path' as the project root holding composer.json. The description's phrase 'given Magento project' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Reads composer.json and composer.lock of the given Magento project') and enumerates the returned state: Magento version, PHP requirement, package count, abandoned packages. This clearly separates it from siblings like check_updates or scan_module_risk.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call this first' for a fast overview before 'the deeper (and slower) checks like check_updates, scan_module_risk or build_upgrade_plan'. Names both the trigger condition and the alternative tools, leaving nothing to inference.

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