Summarize a codebase by listing file counts, packages, top classes/functions, and infrastructure directories, so AI assistants can assess project structure without reading raw files.
Project overview: file count, packages, top classes/functions, infra dirs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | Project name/path (default: active). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does 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 fully covered. The description adds value by enumerating the aggregated contents, which is useful for a summary tool, but it says nothing about cost, latency, or scope of aggregation (whole project vs. active project).
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?
A single compact sentence fragment that front-loads the resource ('Project overview') before the content list. No wasted words, though the telegraphic noun-list style sacrifices some readability.
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 does the right thing by enumerating returned contents (counts, packages, top classes/functions, infra dirs), so return-value expectations are set. But in a 60+ tool set with multiple summary/stats siblings, it fails to establish when this tool is the right one, leaving a real gap for selection.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'project' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its '(default: active)' behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 resource ('project overview') and enumerates what it aggregates: file count, packages, top classes/functions, infra dirs. An agent understands the output shape. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like get_structure_summary or get_stats, which sound like they return overlapping structural summaries.
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 guidance on when to use this over get_structure_summary, get_stats, get_diagnostics, or discover_project_actions. No exclusions, no prerequisites, no alternatives named. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.