project_overview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists what the tool shows but does not explicitly state it is read-only, non-destructive, or describe any side effects. The user must infer it's safe, but transparency could be improved.

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: first sentence clearly states purpose and outputs; second sentence provides parameter guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists sections but does not describe output format (e.g., summary, JSON). It is sufficient for a one-parameter tool with clear purpose, but could hint at return type for completeness.

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 include parameter is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), providing enum values. The description adds value by giving usage examples ('Use ["stack"] for quick type check'), enhancing semantics beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'START HERE for unfamiliar codebases' and lists specific outputs (project type, architecture, framework detection, quality tools, CI, directory map), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'explore' or 'code_audit'.

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 explicit guidance: 'START HERE for unfamiliar codebases' and gives examples for include parameter (['stack'], ['quality','ci']). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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