get_project_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses two meaningful behaviors: the tool auto-runs reindex_project if no index exists, and it produces a compact map. It doesn't mention potential cost, whether it's a read-only operation, or response size, but given zero annotations this is respectable disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, tightly written, no filler. The description front-loads the core purpose and then adds usage guidance and a side-effect note. Slightly more could be dropped, but it's efficient and earns every sentence.

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 a single optional well-documented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, contents, when-to-call, cost tradeoff, and a side-effect. It's a simple tool and the description is complete for the context. Could mention return format size/limits, but that's minor.

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%, so the single optional parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that project_path can be auto-detected when omitted, which adds a useful behavioral nuance beyond the schema's default text. Baseline 3 plus the auto-detect hint justifies 4.

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') targeting a specific resource ('compact map of the project') and enumerates concrete contents: file tree with line counts, all classes/types, and all exports. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like reindex_project, check_symbols, and file-reading 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?

Explicit guidance: 'Call this early in a session to orient yourself in an unfamiliar codebase.' It also contrasts with alternatives ('Much cheaper than reading individual files') and discloses a side effect (auto-runs reindex_project). This is strong when-to-use guidance.

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