gather_context

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. It never states that this is a read-only inspection, whether it touches the filesystem beyond reading, or what the response contains. For a 9-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the content list followed by the flag behavior. Efficient, though the terse telegraphic style leaves some ambiguity about what each section returns.

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 overview tool with no output schema, the description covers the section flags adequately but leaves path, depth, project_type, return shape, and index prerequisites unexplained. Adequate as a minimum but incomplete for a 9-parameter tool.

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?

With only 22% schema description coverage, the description does add value by mapping the section names to the boolean flags (structure, file_types, framework, entry_points, test_layout, config_files). However it omits project_type entirely and gives no meaning for path or depth, leaving real gaps.

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?

Names the resource (project overview) and enumerates the sections it covers: structure, file types, frameworks, entry points, test layout, config files. Clearly distinguishes itself from search/index siblings, though the verb itself only comes from the tool name rather than the description.

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 only guidance is 'Pass flags to pick sections (default: all).' There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus analyze, index_project, or check_index_status, and no prerequisites such as whether the project must be indexed first.

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