Get research context

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

The description explicitly discloses that the operation is 'Read-only', which is valuable behavior information given that no annotations are provided. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as how the limit parameters affect the result, what happens when project_name is null, or whether the aggregate is a single combined structure or separate sections.

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 a single efficient sentence with no fluff, and it front-loads the key 'Read-only aggregate' behavior. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly more structured by adding a second sentence with usage guidance or parameter hints.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the one-sentence description is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool. It does not explain default behavior, the meaning of null project_name, or how the limit parameters shape the output. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value confusion but not invocation decisions.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It names a few high-level categories (project status, activities, advisor instructions, candidate intelligence) that map to some parameters, but it does not explain specific parameters like candidate_limit, include_rejected, recent_brief_limit, or recent_project_knowledge_limit. An agent could infer meaning from parameter names, but the description adds little beyond that.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read-only aggregate of current project status, recent activities, advisor instructions, and candidate intelligence.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns and distinguishes it from sibling tools that address only one of these categories. However, 'aggregate' is somewhat generic and doesn't explicitly describe the output structure.

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 implies usage when a broad snapshot of research context is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_project_status or list_research_activities. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the decision from the aggregate wording.

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