get_project_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses only that it returns assets and graph relationships. It does not state that it is read-only, whether it requires auth, how large the response may be, or what happens for an unknown repository name.

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?

One tightly written sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It could be slightly sharper by naming the sibling tools it competes with, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and the description does hint at the returned content (context, assets, relationships). However, with no output schema and no annotations, the return shape and safety profile remain only partially specified.

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 100% and there is a single, required repositoryName parameter whose schema description already includes concrete examples. The prose adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('repository context') and enumerates what it returns — contained assets and graph relationships — for any NSTOK repo. It is distinguishable from the app- and feature-scoped siblings by its repo-level scope, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_app_context or get_feature_context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the very similar get_app_context, get_feature_context, or find_* siblings. The agent must infer that 'repo level' is the differentiator, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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