Project Brief Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds real context beyond the annotation: this is a one-call aggregation covering many entity types, contrasted with narrower siblings. It does not discuss size limits or pagination for such a broad aggregate, which is the one remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the content inventory, then the usage conditions and alternatives. The long enumeration of included entities is dense but every item maps to actual returned data, so it earns its space. Could be slightly tightened but is efficient overall.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return contents — which it does thoroughly via the entity enumeration. For a zero-required-param read aggregator with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete; only edge behavior (large projects, truncation) is unstated.

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 all three params (repo, project, session) are fully documented, including the precedence rule that session's project wins over repo. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('get up to speed on a project' / project_brief) and enumerates exactly what it returns: description, repos, team, notes, documents, files, links, decisions, tasks, blockers, updates. This is far more specific than sibling project_context or project_timeline, so an agent can distinguish them without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('for /brief or when starting work on a project') and names three alternatives with the exact condition each covers: project_context for the full context document, project_timeline for day-by-day history, read_document for a document's text. Nothing is left to inference.

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