Resume context

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: determinism ('No model runs in this path, so the same state always yields the same text'), output budgeting (roughly 16KB with explicit trim notice), and 'Read-only; writes nothing' reinforcing readOnlyHint. No contradiction with the provided 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?

Dense but each sentence earns its place — purpose first, then safety/determinism guarantees, then usage authority, then budget behavior. Slightly long but tightly packed with non-redundant information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return contract explicitly by enumerating every field in the projection and the trim behavior. For a single-optional-parameter read tool this is complete; nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents the optional project parameter including the .continuity/ discovery fallback. The description adds no param detail, which is fine since the schema carries the full burden; 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?

Specific verb ('Return') plus a clearly enumerated resource: project state as a deterministic projection listing mission, milestone, next step, frozen constraints, active decisions, rejected alternatives, parked conflicts, and open questions. This fully distinguishes it from the record_*/create_* mutation siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this FIRST when starting work on an ongoing project' and gives authority rules ('frozen items and rejected alternatives are authoritative, not suggestions'). It doesn't name alternatives by exclusion, but the contrast with sibling write tools is implied clearly enough.

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