Load Project Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it explains that loading the full project returns a table of contents plus all section content, while loading a specific section returns just that section. It also mentions 'Case-insensitive search' for project_name, which is a subtle behavioral detail not in the annotations.

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 well-structured with bold text and bullet points, making it easy to scan. It is slightly redundant—the 'Load project context from FlowMCP' sentence appears both in the warning and later in the body—but the overall length is justified by the useful usage guidance. Every major point earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns: 'table of contents + all section content' for full loads, or 'just that section' for partial loads. It also covers the prerequisite of needing to know section names and points to a discovery method. It could mention potential errors (e.g., project not found), but for a read-only tool, the provided information is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the conditional relationship between parameters: 'provide just project_name' for full load, or 'provide project_name + section_type' for a specific section. It also explains the trade-off ('token-efficient') and how to discover valid section types, which goes beyond the 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Load project context from FlowMCP.' It specifies the verb 'load' and the resource 'project context,' and it distinguishes between loading the full project or a specific section. This differentiates it from sibling tools like flowmcp_list_spaces and flowmcp_project, which are explicitly mentioned as alternatives.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Do NOT answer broad architecture questions... Load its context first.' It also gives concrete scenarios for loading everything ('full project onboarding') versus a single section ('when the user asks about a specific aspect'), and even suggests an alternative tool ('use flowmcp_project with action='list'') for listing projects. This is clear, actionable guidance.

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