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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds behavioral context by listing the exact content of the summary (dimensions, fps, duration, element breakdown, per-track timeline, render-time warnings) and notes the performance trade-off ('Much cheaper to read'). This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two sentences, each carrying substantial information. The first sentence opens with the action and lists the summary contents; the second provides the usage rationale and alternative. No wasted words or redundancy.

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, but the description compensates by enumerating all the major fields the summary contains. It also positions the tool relative to get_project and explains when to use it. For a read-only tool with one optional parameter, this is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100% and the sole parameter (project_id) has a thorough, self-contained explanation including when to omit it. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level semantics, so per the rubric baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Return') and clearly defines the resource ('a compact, human-readable summary of the current project'), then enumerates the contents. It also distinguishes the tool from the sibling get_project by contrasting 'compact' vs. 'full JSON', making it easy to know which tool to pick.

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 explicitly states the intended use cases: 'use it to orient yourself or sanity-check structure without dumping the whole source.' It also names an alternative (get_project) and explains why this tool is preferable when you need only a summary, which is exactly the kind of guidance an agent needs.

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