get_project_yaml

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cache read nature, the prerequisite, and the return behavior for both parameter states. It does not cover error cases, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every clause contributes meaningful usage guidance.

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 two-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, the selection behavior, and the return mode. It could mention alternative YAML-reading tools for fuller context, but this is not a critical gap.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond what is already structured. The description restates the fileName behavior but does not introduce new semantic details.

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 clearly states the action ('Read YAML files'), the resource ('local project cache'), and the two possible outcomes (single file or list of keys). It is distinct from sibling tools like sync_project or update_project_yaml.

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 requires sync_project to be run first, which is a clear prerequisite. It also explains when fileName should be omitted, though it does not name alternative read tools explicitly.

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