project_get_modified

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

The description indicates a read-only check ('check whether') with no side effects, but it does not disclose the return value format (e.g., boolean) or define what counts as 'unsaved changes'. With no annotations, more behavioral detail would be helpful, though the basic nature is clear.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that conveys the entire purpose without redundancy. It is appropriately short for a simple tool.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. It could mention the return type (e.g., true/false) but is otherwise adequate for a straightforward check operation.

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 the schema is empty. The description adds semantic clarity by explaining the tool's purpose, which is sufficient given the absence of parameters.

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 a specific verb ('check') and resource ('whether the project has unsaved changes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_save or project_get_info. It is unambiguous and concise.

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 usage is implied: one would call this to determine if there are unsaved changes before deciding to save. However, no explicit guidance or alternatives are provided, leaving the agent to infer when to use it versus other project-related tools.

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