Summarize a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which is repeated in the description. The description adds the term 'bounded' (suggesting output limits) and 'structural summary' (indicating the nature of the result), but it does not disclose behavior for invalid paths or detailed output structure. This is slightly more than annotation repetition, but still limited.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and constraints. Every word adds value with no repetition or filler.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys purpose and scope. The term 'structural summary' is somewhat vague, and no output format is described, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably 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 schema fully describes the single 'path' parameter (100% coverage), and the description does not add additional semantic details beyond what is in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because schema covers the parameter.

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 clearly states the action (Return), the resource (a directory), and the outcome (a structural summary). It distinguishes itself from siblings like read_project_file (which reads files) and analyze_project (which likely performs deeper analysis) by focusing on a bounded, structural summary.

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 clear context: use this to get a structural summary of a directory within an approved root. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool instead of alternatives like analyze_project, nor does it state exclusions. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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