Project summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds real value: the app-connection prerequisite and version-dependent behavior relative to project_info. It doesn't mention result format or failure behavior when no project is open, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the field list, then the project_info comparison and prerequisite. The trailing Korean sentence merely restates the purpose in another language and adds no new information for a non-Korean reader, a minor 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and notes the app dependency and version behavior, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain: no indication of what happens when no project is open or the app is unavailable.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics to clarify and the description correctly does not invent any.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Short summary of the project currently open in the BULC app') and then enumerates exactly what the summary contains: CHID, title, end time, mesh, and object counts. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling project_info, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool ('project_info') and the exact condition that selects it ('On BULC 0.90+ project_info gives more... file path, unsaved changes, stories, deck path'), which is a clear when-to-use-this-vs-that rule. It also states the prerequisite 'Needs the app', so the agent knows the required runtime context.

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