project_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no new behavioral context: it does not state whether the status is cached, whether it incurs any cost, or what happens if the project doesn't exist. Since annotations cover the essential safety profile, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds little beyond the annotations.

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 extremely short ('project status'), which could be seen as concise, but it is under-specification rather than efficient brevity. It provides no useful content, so the single sentence does not earn its place. There is no attempt to front-load any meaningful information about the status or the tool's behavior.

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?

The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a trivial annotation set (only readOnlyHint and destructiveHint). Given this simplicity, the description barely suffices to indicate it is a read-only status check. However, for a tool that could reasonably return a rich status object, the absence of any detail about what status is returned (current phase, last build result, etc.) leaves an agent guessing. A more complete description would at least say 'Returns the current status of the project, including phase and recent activity.'

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema is effectively empty (100% schema description coverage). With no parameters to document, the description does not need to add parameter semantics. A baseline of 4 is warranted because there is nothing to explain; the description's lack of parameter detail is not a deficiency when there are no parameters.

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 'project status' is a vague phrase that essentially restates the tool name without specifying what the status is, what it covers, or what the resource is. It fails to indicate whether this returns overall project health, current phase, or build state, and it does not distinguish the tool from siblings like project_generate or project_validate. It is closer to a tautology than a clear purpose statement.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling names (e.g., project_validate, project_generate) imply a family of project tools, nothing in the description explains the specific conditions under which an agent should select project_status. For a status-check tool, one would expect guidance like 'use to get current state before making changes' or 'use instead of project_validate to avoid triggering validation checks.'

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