project_report

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read operation, lowering the disclosure bar. Beyond that, the description adds useful content scope by enumerating the report sections (done, new, blocked, overdue, PRs, milestones, time), which tells the agent what data categories to expect. It still omits return format, aggregation rules, and whether PR or time data depends on integrations, so it remains only partially transparent.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with zero filler, but it is a cryptic keyword fragment rather than a structured sentence. Conciseness is achieved at the cost of clarity, so it sits at the minimum-viable level rather than earning a high score.

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 read-only report tool with no output schema, the keyword list does convey the report's content sections, which is the most important missing piece. However, the description leaves the agent without guidance on when to call it, what the workspace parameter does, or what form the report takes. It is adequate but with clear gaps relative to the tool's modest complexity.

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 67%: 'since' explains its default (7d) and 'projectIdentifier' explains it is a project key, while 'workspace' is undocumented. The description adds no parameter semantics at all – 'Weekly' loosely echoes the default 7d window, but nothing clarifies the workspace parameter or how since interacts with the weekly framing. It does not compensate for the uncovered parameter.

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 is a keyword list ('done, new, blocked, overdue, PRs, milestones, time') that implies a weekly project status report, but never states a verb or scope in sentence form. An agent can infer the resource (project) and the report's content categories from the name plus the list, yet the purpose stays vague rather than being a precise verb+resource statement. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_project or changes_since.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_project or changes_since. The word 'Weekly' hints at a recurring reporting use case, but nothing tells the agent under which conditions to prefer this tool over reading a project directly. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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