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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by specifying that the tool depends on the currently active project context and enumerates what statistics it returns. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the tool's purpose and output, and the second gives the prerequisite. There is no redundant wording or repetition of the tool name.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately names the returned information and the required setup. 'Project info' is somewhat vague, but the overall usage context is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter detail for the description to add. However, the description usefully clarifies that the effective scope is the 'active project' and that this is established by set_context, which is more informative than the empty schema alone.

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 ('get') and resource ('dashboard statistics') and lists concrete contents: spec count, environment count, and project info. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_projects or get_project because it refers to an aggregate dashboard for the active project.

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 provides a clear precondition: the active project context must already be set, and explicitly instructs to call set_context first. It gives useful context for when the tool can be used, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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