Project Preflight

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

The description explicitly says 'read-only' and 'checks,' which is valuable because no annotations are provided and it signals a non-mutating operation. However, it does not describe what happens if the contract fails, what resources are inspected, or whether any system state is read or cached, leaving the behavioral picture incomplete.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; it communicates the action and the read-only safety property efficiently. It is concise, though the terseness comes at the cost of missing critical context.

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 five parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is far from sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It never explains what the 'project start contract' consists of, how to provide the required project value, or what the optional parameters do. The presence of an output schema helps but does not compensate for these 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 0%, and the description provides no meaning for any of the five parameters: project, task_id, hermes_bin, kanban_board, and projects_root. An agent cannot infer how to populate the required project parameter or what the optional parameters control.

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 gives a specific verb ('checks'), a specific resource ('read-only project start contract'), and a clear timing context ('before implementation'). However, it doesn't define what the contract contains, and sibling tools like amnesia_check also perform checks, so differentiation from other tools is weak.

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 'before implementation' implies when the tool should be used, giving useful context. But there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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