get_project_snapshot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'bounded' and 'paginated' output but does not reveal side effects, permissions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. The lack of detail about the refresh parameter's side effects and cache behavior is a gap.

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, information-dense sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action ('Returns a bounded project overview') and lists components efficiently. Every phrase adds value, making it highly concise.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be fully contextual. It lists return components but does not explain what 'bounded' means, how pagination works, or how to interpret the components. The tool's complexity demands more detail.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain parameter interactions or provide examples that would help select values.

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 returns a 'bounded project overview' with specific components (place identity, counts, remotes, modules, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_project or inspect_instance, though it does not explicitly differentiate by naming them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies an overview use case but does not mention scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate, nor does it suggest exclusions.

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