Read ICC Plus project schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'generated' provenance and the summary/definition/full scoping, but does not describe output details or how the two optional parameters interact.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and clearly enumerates the three read modes without redundancy.

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 tool with only two optional parameters and strong readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description is largely complete. It does not specify the exact JSON return shape or combined-parameter behavior, but the 'or' phrasing and JSON Schema context make the intended usage reasonably clear.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already explains `full` and `definition` with useful examples. The tool description maps those parameters to three modes but adds little meaning beyond what the input schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('generated JSON Schema summary, one definition, or the complete project schema'), giving three clear scopes. It is not tautological and the title reinforces the purpose, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like iccplus_read_project or iccplus_capabilities.

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 implies three usage modes matching the optional parameters: summary, a single definition, or the complete schema. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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