query_project_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It adds that results are a daily rollup and include counts and token usage, but does not disclose behavioral traits like data freshness, pagination, sorting, or how multiple projects are handled. The transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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, front-loading the core functionality and then a usage example. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain return structure or provide sample output. It covers basic purpose but leaves gaps about what the agent can expect in terms of result format or pagination.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the project focus. No extra parameter context or examples are provided.

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 provides a daily rollup per project with event/request counts and token usage, and gives an example use case. It differentiates from siblings like query_language_summary by specifying 'per project', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 includes a concrete usage example: 'Use for 'which project uses the most tokens this week' questions.' It implicitly guides when to use this tool over others focused on different summaries, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.

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