get-overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's role is reduced. It adds context about output being Markdown and the two modes, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits beyond that.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and efficiently covers both usage modes with no redundant 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?

Simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema. Description covers the essential behavior for both modes. Could add slightly more detail about what 'hierarchy' entails, but generally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already describes the parameter's effect. The tool description enhances this by specifying that omitting projectId shows 'all projects with hierarchy and sections' and including it shows 'detailed overview including all tasks grouped by sections', adding value 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'Markdown overview', and clearly distinguishes two modes: with and without projectId. This differentiates it from sibling tools that perform CRUD on specific entities.

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?

Explicitly states when to use each mode: without projectId for navigation (all projects with hierarchy), with projectId for detailed project overview. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the guidance is clear and practical.

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