Project state

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. Description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Deterministic, no LLM' and 'Live (non-superseded) memories only', clarifying filtering and reliability beyond structured annotations.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?

Description is relatively short (3 sentences) and front-loaded with key purpose. Every sentence adds value: definition, usage guidance, determinism, and related SDK helpers. Could be slightly more structured but no wasted words.

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?

Given 2 params, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers purpose and usage well but lacks output format details. 'Grouped by code_kind' hints at structure but does not specify return shape, pagination, or behavior when limit is exceeded.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not mention parameters. 'project' is implied but not described; 'limit' (default 200) is completely omitted. No details on how limit affects results or expected format.

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 returns the current code-state of a project grouped by code_kind, with examples like architecture_decision. It distinguishes from siblings like remember_code (capture) and check_forbidden_action (single check), and explicitly says 'call this to ONBOARD into a project, or to see what is decided and what is forbidden before acting.'

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use: for onboarding or before acting to check decisions/forbidden actions. Mentions 'Deterministic, no LLM' indicating a safe query. While it implies alternatives via SDK helpers, it does not directly compare to siblings like check_forbidden_action or memory_state.

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