project_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full beavioral burden, and it explicitly says 'Inspect only', signaling a read-only operation with no mutation. It also discloses the response scope by stating 'No stanza bodies', which sets expectations about what the tool will not return.

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 very compact and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Folder inspect card') followed by a tight list of output facets. The cryptic 'card' phrasing is a minor clarity cost, but no sentence is wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure is covered, and the parameter set is small. However, missing usage guidance and undocumeted parameter semantics leave an agent without enough context to decide when to call this tool versus its siblings.

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 0% and the description does not explain the optional 'project' parameter, the required 'working_folder', or their relationship. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 clear verb ('inspect') and a resource ('folder'), and lists the specific data the tool reports: map, sourced core ids, size, on-demand ids, disk freshness. The explicit 'No stanza bodies' boundary helps distinguish it from sibling stanza-reading tools, though the word 'card' is somewhat cryptic.

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 offers no guidance on when to choose this over the many sibling tools like get_project, list_projects, or list_on_demand. 'Inspect only' implies a read-only context, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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