project_get_context

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Get project context', implying a read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, mention authentication needs, or describe side effects. The agent lacks key safety information.

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 a single sentence, extremely concise and to the point. It front-loads the purpose. While it could be more informative, it wastes no 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 the tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema exists), the description communicates the basic purpose. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which are important for complete context. The output schema may compensate for return value details, but the description alone is moderately complete.

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 single parameter 'name' has a schema description 'Project name', which provides basic meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds no further value. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter's role or constraints.

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 'Get project context' clearly identifies the action (get) and the resource (project context). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project_set_context (setting) and project_get (which may retrieve other project info). However, it could be more precise about what 'context' entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., project_get, project_set_context). The agent receives no context about prerequisites or scenarios, forcing reliance on the tool name alone.

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