get_test_summary

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: filtering out production projects/generated code/BCL calls, case-insensitive project filter, and sort order (tests by file/line, projects by name ASC). It could mention that the tool is read-only, but the behavior is well-covered.

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 well-structured: it starts with the main purpose, then details output fields, use cases, filtering behavior, and sorting. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 the simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is comprehensive: it explains input, output content, filtering, and sorting. It lacks mention of pagination or limits, but these are not critical for this type of tool.

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 covers the single parameter 'project' with 100% description. The tool description adds context (case-insensitive, optional) beyond the schema's basic description. Baseline for 100% coverage is 3, but the extra context warrants a 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 clearly states the tool provides a 'per-project inventory of test methods' and lists specific reported details (framework, attribute kind, row count, location, referenced symbols). It distinguishes itself from the sibling find_tests_for_symbol by specifying the direction (project → tests vs. test → production).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'answer what does this test suite cover?' or 'break down test counts by framework/attribute'. It also contrasts with find_tests_for_symbol, giving clear guidance on which tool to use for which direction of analysis.

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