Get Project Status

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

Discloses non-obvious side effects: branch switching before validation, lazy compilation start when idle, waiting on a live status topic, progress notifications, 409 on wait=false branch mismatch, and timeout fallback. This goes well beyond the annotations' readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, giving the agent an accurate model of when the tool mutates state.

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?

Four sentences: purpose first, then default/wait behavior, then the read-only exception, then the recompilation note. Every sentence carries a distinct fact needed to call the tool safely, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with no output schema, the description names what it returns (compile state, diagnostics, pending changes, module/test summary) and the key terminal states (ok/warnings/errors). The schema fills in per-parameter details like timeout and severity. It could further describe the exact response shape or failure modes for unopened projects, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the parameter descriptions are already detailed, covering wait semantics, branch mismatch behavior, severity sorting, timeout caps, and response formats. The main description's extra behavioral notes add useful context but do not materially improve parameter understanding beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it returns compile state, diagnostics, pending changes, and module/test summary. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like openl_get_project or openl_get_test_results_summary, which cover only subsets of that status surface. Very little inference is needed.

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 gives explicit usage direction: default wait=true behavior, 'Set wait=false only for a fast read-only snapshot', and 'Omit for repositories that do not support branches'. It also notes that table edits already trigger recompilation. It does not name sibling alternatives for when to prefer openl_get_test_results_summary or openl_list_project_local_changes, so I won't give full marks.

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