project_context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description then adds what is actually returned (stack, commands, git state, layout, instruction files, memory notes), which is genuine content-level information beyond the annotations. It does not discuss truncation or freshness of the gathered data.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the 'start here' positioning and then a tight enumeration of contents. Every clause maps to a distinct piece of returned information.

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 read-only orientation tool with complete annotations and no output schema, the description enumerates the returned sections well enough for an agent to know what it will get and when to call it first. It could say more about scope limits or ordering, but nothing essential is missing.

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 optional parameter ('path', with default workspace behavior) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no path semantics of its own, 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?

The description lists exactly what the tool aggregates: detected stack, build/test/lint commands, git state, top-level layout, instruction files, README start, and memory notes. That distinguishes it from narrower siblings like repo_map, git_status, and project_memory. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns'/'aggregates'), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

'Start here for any project' gives clear, explicit when-to-use guidance and positions it as the entry point before the more specialized siblings. It stops short of naming when not to use it or which sibling to reach for instead once a specific need appears, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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