get_project_memo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description reiterates 'Read-only' and adds return format, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and optional behavior. Every word is purposeful and no repetition.

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 no output schema, the description specifies the return format as JSON with memo and optional history, which is helpful. However, it does not detail the structure of the memo itself or error handling, but overall adequate for a simple read tool with robust annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'limit' in context, but does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema descriptions. No new insights are provided.

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 returns the latest synthesized project memo for a scope, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like regenerate_project_memo, which is a write operation.

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 retrieving memos, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like regenerate_project_memo or when not to use. No exclusions or context are provided, leaving guidance implied.

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