Project Status

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden. It clearly signals this is a non-destructive read operation via 'Get' and 'Shows', and discloses the informational scope (spec statuses, team, audit integrity). It does not mention any side effects or permissions, but for a read-only status tool these are not critical.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and every clause adds specific information. No fluff.

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 summarizing the return content: spec progress, team composition, audit chain status. It could be more detailed about formatting or exact outputs, but it's sufficient for an overview tool.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The description adds value by describing what the status report contains, but since no parameters exist, the schema fully covers this aspect. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 uses the verb 'Get' to specify a read operation and clearly identifies the resource: 'current status of the clean-room project'. It enumerates three specific aspects (spec progress, team members, audit trail integrity) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cleanroom_spec_list or cleanroom_team_list that focus on individual components.

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 implies this is the tool for an overall status overview ('summary of all specifications...'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides clear context but no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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