get-overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to cover safety. The description adds useful behavioral context: output is Markdown and behavior depends on projectId presence. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds information, with no redundancy or wasted words.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior for both modes. It explains the Markdown output format and the two use cases, making it complete for a read-only overview tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for projectId. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how the parameter's presence changes the output, which is valuable for correct invocation.

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 it gets a Markdown overview, distinguishing between two modes: without projectId (all projects with hierarchy) and with projectId (detailed project overview with tasks grouped by sections). This is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 explains when to use each mode (with or without projectId), providing clear context. While no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use are mentioned, the context signals and sibling tools list imply alternatives for specific tasks.

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