project_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: 'It changes nothing' explicitly declares read-only behavior, and the shape of the report (one line per part, one line per document, possible leading notice about a newer release or LLM client restart) is disclosed. It does not cover error conditions (e.g., missing project file) or what happens when path points outside a project.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information about output structure or required agent behavior. The mid-sentence line wrapping and slightly informal phrasing ('A first line can tell about...') cost it a little, but there is no filler.

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, yet the description still usefully summarizes the two line types and the special leading notice the agent must relay to the user, which is the main behavioral requirement. The remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance to the overlapping project_* and list_* 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 100% and the single optional path parameter is fully documented there, including the default and the datasheet-lens.toml lookup rule. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states the resource (parts and documents of the user project) and what is reported (state of the copies in the project folder: missing/changed copies, new files, problems). It is less explicit about the verb and never distinguishes itself from closely named siblings such as project_check, project_sync, list_parts, or list_documents.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus project_check, project_sync, list_parts, or list_documents, which all appear to overlap. The only guidance is an output-handling instruction ('A first line can tell about a newer release... tell the user'), not call-site guidance.

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