get-overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context about the output format (Markdown) and the grouping structure (hierarchy, sections, tasks grouped by sections), exceeding what the annotations provide.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second efficiently explains the conditional behavior. Every clause adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter), has an output schema, and annotations cover safety. The description explains both invocation modes and the nature of the output ('Markdown overview'), making it complete for an agent to select and use correctly.

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% and the schema itself describes the conditional behavior of projectId. The description reinforces this and adds more specificity (e.g., 'hierarchy and sections' and 'tasks grouped by sections'), providing extra nuance 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 and resource ('Get a Markdown overview') and clearly distinguishes the two modes of operation (all projects vs. specific project). It differentiates itself from sibling find/search tools by offering a high-level overview rather than granular results.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'useful for navigation' when no projectId, and detailed project overview when projectId is given. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or reference alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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