get_project_context

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists return components (description, glossary, attendees, recent meeting summary, minutes template), which indicates it is a read-only retrieval tool. No contradictions or omissions about side effects.

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 a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and content, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the simple input (1 parameter) and no output schema, the description partially covers the tool's behavior by listing output components. However, it lacks parameter description, which is a gap for a complete understanding. It is minimally adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 does not explain the 'project' parameter. It only describes the output, leaving the agent to infer that 'project' is likely a project identifier. This is insufficient for correct invocation, especially without schema descriptions.

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 tool retrieves project context for minutes writing, listing components like description, glossary, attendees, meeting summary, and template. It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects (just lists names) and add_glossary (single component addition).

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 usage for minutes writing preparation, providing clear context (회의록 작성용). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over others based on need for full context.

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