Get project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only; takes no input and changes nothing' mostly restates them. The description still adds real value by disclosing the server-scoped resolution behavior and the exact returned fields (name, absolute root, branch, mode), which annotations do not cover.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose and return fields first, safety second, usage trigger last. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of the returned values is exactly what an agent needs to decide whether to call it. Combined with annotations covering safety and a zero-parameter schema, nothing material is missing.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4, and the description correctly confirms 'takes no input,' aligning with the empty schema. There is no parameter meaning left to add.

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 ('Return') and resource ('the resolved project this server is attached to'), then enumerates the returned fields: name, absolute root, git branch and mode. That scope cleanly separates it from the task-oriented siblings such as get_task and list_tasks.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it: 'when you need board location or branch context before operating on tasks.' That gives a clear triggering condition, though it names no alternatives or exclusions for cases where project context is already known.

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