project_info

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it defines the `warn` field's semantics ('identity is NOT stable across machines; relay it verbatim'), lists the exact return shape, and warns that a misidentified project is a failure the user can catch instantly. It stops short of explicitly confirming the tool is free of side effects, though 'Resolve the stable identity' strongly implies a pure lookup.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence earns its place: usage rule, mandatory call ordering, warn behavior, and return shape. At roughly 100 words it is dense rather than padded, doing the work that annotations and an output schema would otherwise need to do.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers usage timing, mandatory ordering, the return shape, and the warn edge case. The only gap is that fields like `key` vs `source` and the three namespaces are named but never defined — though their meanings are largely inferable from the tool's stated purpose.

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 a complete description of `cwd` (absolute path, defaults to server cwd), so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about the parameter, but none is needed since the schema already carries the full semantic load.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: it 'resolve[s] the stable identity of the current project and the namespaces its memories live in.' This clearly differentiates it from the memory_*/context_* siblings, which operate on memory contents rather than project identity.

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?

Usage timing is explicit and imperative — 'ALWAYS call this before context_save or context_load' — and it names a rule-based trigger ('any time the user asks which project or bucket their memories are going to'). It ties the tool directly to the sibling flows it precedes, giving an agent unambiguous routing. A 'when not to use' exclusion is absent, but the positive guidance is strong enough to compensate.

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