Project status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only'. It adds what the response covers (memory presence, counts by kind, latest 5 entries), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of defining exact formats, but that is a minor 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?

One sentence communicates scope, output content, and safety in under 20 words. Every phrase adds information and the core behavior 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers the key return components sufficiently. It lacks details like ordering of latest entries or error behavior, but those are not necessary for deciding to call it.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the project_root description is thorough, so the schema carries the full parameter burden. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable under the high-coverage baseline.

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?

Description opens with a concrete verb ('Report') and identifies the exact output: whether memory exists, counts by kind, and the latest 5 entries. It is clearly a read-only status snapshot, which separates it from the memory_record and memory_search siblings.

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 read-only label and summary-style output make the intended use obvious: check a project's memory state before deciding to record or search. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer when to call it.

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