get_project_context

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

The description indicates it returns conventions, patterns, etc., but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, performance, or error handling. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden, and it only partially covers transparency.

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 concise with one sentence that front-loads the importance. It is efficient but could be slightly improved by mentioning it is read-only. Overall, it earns its place without fluff.

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 no output schema, the description should ideally outline the return structure more explicitly. It mentions returning conventions, patterns, etc., but lacks detail on format. For a relatively simple get tool with two parameters, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply reiterates the return content. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters adequately.

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 tool returns full conventions, patterns, record types, templates, packages, and rules that generated code MUST follow. It emphasizes calling it before writing code, distinguishing it from siblings that also start with 'get' but serve different purposes.

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 says 'Call this BEFORE writing code for a project', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not list alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the directive is strong and unambiguous.

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