check_project_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the tool returns file existence and a summary, but does not detail the summary format, error cases, or whether it also reads file contents. For a simple check, this is adequate but lacks depth.

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 two sentences: first states action and outputs, second gives usage guidance. No redundant words, front-loaded with key 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 simple state check with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's scope by listing specific files checked. It could elaborate on what the 'summary' includes, but overall it is complete enough for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema coverage. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description correctly adds no extraneous param info. Baseline 4 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?

Description clearly states the tool checks the current state of project management files, lists specific files (.project/index.md, ROADMAP.md, TODO.md, STATUS.md, DECISIONS.md), and provides a summary. This verb-resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like get_doc or get_roadmap.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this before making changes to understand what exists,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly list alternative tools, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct among siblings.

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