status

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own, and it does add the useful properties that the returned state is 'deterministic' and 'materialized,' but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether permissions are needed, or any rate limits. This is moderately transparent for a simple status query but leaves room for more behavioral context.

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 focused sentence with no filler or repetition. The key facts—what it returns, the determinism/materialization behavior, and the family scope—are stated efficiently.

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?

For a one-parameter read-style tool with a provided output schema, the description covers the essential call semantics. The main gap is the lack of comparison to sibling state/query tools, but the simplicity of the interface and the schema coverage make the description largely sufficient.

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 describes family_id as a string with no additional description, so the phrase 'for one family' is the only semantic signal tying the parameter to the tool's scope. It compensates partially for 0% schema coverage, but does not explicitly say that family_id is the selector or explain its format/domain.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') and identifies the resource as 'deterministic materialized project-management state' scoped to 'one family,' which is specific enough to understand what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish status from siblings like read_context or graph, so the purpose is clear but not differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling query tools (read_context, graph, refresh_views) or when not to use it. The description implies a read operation but provides no selection criteria or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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