wf_project_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that many facets are bundled into a single call, but says nothing about cost, size, or freshness of the aggregated data. With annotations carrying safety and an output schema carrying returns, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence leading with the core idea ('Orientation in one call') followed by a dense enumeration of covered facets. No filler, every listed item earns its place.

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 zero-parameter aggregator with an output schema, the description tells the agent what the payload covers, which is enough to call it correctly. What it lacks is a note on relative cost/volume of pulling every facet at once, the one piece of context an agent would want before invoking it as a first step.

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 takes zero parameters, which per the rubric sets a baseline of 4. There is no parameter behavior for the description to clarify or omit.

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?

States a specific verb-adjacent concept ('orientation') and enumerates exactly what the call aggregates: index summary, programs with call trees, FBs with interfaces, GVLs/DUTs, lint summary, git state. This is clearly distinguishable from granular siblings like proj_lint or proj_call_graph, but the description never explicitly names those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Orientation in one call' implies this is a starting-point/aggregate tool, which is genuine usage context. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and does not name any alternative (e.g. use proj_lint for just lint, proj_scan for a scan) to route the agent.

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