get-overview

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the Markdown return format, the hierarchical/section structure, and the task-grouping behavior for specific projects, going beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 concise sentences lead with the primary purpose, then clarify both usage modes with no filler or redundant detail. Every sentence 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 simple, read-only, single-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is fully adequate. It explains both invocation paths and the content each returns, leaving no meaningful gaps for an agent to select or call the 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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the description mirrors the conditional behavior. It adds some extra output context such as 'all tasks grouped by sections,' but the core parameter meaning is already covered by the schema, so the description contributes only marginal added value.

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 Markdown overview and distinguishes two modes: all projects with hierarchy/sections when no projectId is given, versus a detailed project overview with tasks grouped by sections when projectId is provided. This is a specific verb+resource combination that separates it from analytics-focused siblings like get-productivity-stats or get-project-health.

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?

Usage guidance is clear: omit projectId for a navigational overview of all projects, or provide it for a focused project view. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the conditional guidance is actionable and context-rich.

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