project_boundaries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool exposes an 'accumulated negative definition' built from refusals, and the imperative 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation. However, it does not state the output shape, whether any side effects occur, or prerequisites. It adds useful conceptual context but not full behavioral 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core definition, the second elaborates on the source of boundaries, and the third gives a direct usage instruction. No fluff, front-loaded, and memorable.

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 description conveys purpose and when to use, but with no output schema and no parameter semantics for 'goal', it is not fully complete. An agent knows to read it before deriving/proposing, but not what the result will look like or how the 'goal' parameter affects the result. Given the simple optional-parameter surface, it is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 only 50%; the 'goal' parameter has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not compensate. The description does not mention 'cwd' or 'goal' at all, so an agent is left to infer what 'goal' filters or specifies. This is a significant gap given the half-documented schema.

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 identifies the tool as a resource about what the project is NOT — non-goals, refusals, and their reasoning. This distinguishes it from siblings like derive_features or feature_propose. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list'; 'Read before...' implies the action but does not name it directly.

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 phrase 'Read before deriving or proposing anything' gives explicit context for when to use this tool — as a prerequisite for derivation or proposal workflows. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the instruction is clear enough for an agent to know this should be consulted early.

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