project_context

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

The description adds the behavioral trait of auto-detecting the project from CWD, which goes beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It is consistent with the read-only annotation and clearly conveys that it is a read operation. No side effects are implied, which aligns with the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential information without fluff. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simplicity of the tool, the description is complete enough. It covers the primary action, the auto-detection behavior, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the return format, though the detail_level parameter implies summary vs. full document.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only restates the auto-detection behavior already in the project parameter description.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('the context document for a project'). It is specific and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'generate_context' (which would create) and 'read' (which is more general) by focusing on project context documents.

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: use it to obtain a project's context document. It provides a useful detail (auto-detection from CWD) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks a clear 'when not to use' or mention of sibling tools.

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