Generate project report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'read-only report'. Beyond annotations, it details the report contents (app info, project metadata, sequences, tracks, sample items), providing useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 long, front-loading the core purpose and contents, followed by a usage recommendation. There is no redundant information, and every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 tool's moderate complexity (consolidated report with two optional parameters) and the presence of good annotations and schema coverage, the description adequately covers purpose and contents. It could mention output format or performance implications, but is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, with clear descriptions for includeTracks and itemSample. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning, mentioning tracks and sample project items, but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the 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 clearly states 'Produce a single consolidated, read-only report of the current state' and enumerates specific contents (app info, project metadata, sequences, tracks, sample items), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual aspects. The phrase 'Great as a first overview' further clarifies its role.

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 explicitly positions the tool as 'Great as a first overview', giving a clear use case for initial broad information gathering. Although it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, the context of sibling tools and the description's intent provide adequate guidance.

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