get_project_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation (summary retrieval) without stating that it is non-destructive or clarifying any side effects. The behavior is inferred to be safe, but there is no explicit disclosure of traits like permissions or output format.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource.

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 read-only summary tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (counts of actors, items, maps, etc.). It is slightly incomplete by not specifying the return format, but that is common among sibling tools and does not severely hinder usability.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; it correctly focuses on the output.

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 verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'summary of the current RPG Maker MV project' with concrete examples of what counts are included (actors, items, maps). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_items' or 'get_actors' that retrieve individual entities rather than aggregated counts.

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 implies that this tool is for getting an overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus querying individual counts via other get_* tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the usage context.

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