Rocky Describe Study

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'Describe' plus 'Returns...' makes clear this is a non-mutating inspection, and 'the open project' signals the precondition that a project must be open. It does not explicitly state that nothing is modified or what happens when no project is open, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the returned content and then the usage cue — well ordered and free of filler. The long enumeration of return fields partially duplicates the output schema, which is the only redundancy.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, scope, precondition, and invocation timing. Missing only explicit assurance of read-only behavior and the failure mode when no project is open.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. Nothing in the description contradicts or muddies the empty 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Describe the open project and study') and enumerates exactly what is reported, which lets an agent distinguish a full study dump from the lighter-looking siblings rocky_status and rocky_simulation_status. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'Call this after any setup step to confirm what the study actually contains' gives a concrete trigger for invocation. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer rocky_status for a quick check), so the agent must infer the boundary.

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