bort_project_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the returned data categories (money, margin, task progress, cost breakdown), which is real behavioral content, but it omits permissions, read-only nature, and behavior when both or neither identifier is supplied.

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 with the content enumeration front-loaded and the identifier options trailing. No wasted words, though it is terse to the point of under-specification.

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 and no annotations, the description must cover both selection and returns. It sketches the returned metrics but omits edge-case behavior and access requirements for a tool whose identifier is fully optional.

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?

Two parameters at 0% schema coverage, so the description must compensate. 'По project_id или названию' usefully signals that either identifier works, but it does not explain precedence when both are given or what happens when neither is provided, leaving a real gap.

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 ('Сводка одного проекта') and enumerates what the summary contains (money, margin, task progress, cost breakdown by category). This differentiates it from a plain get, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like bort_project_get or bort_summary.

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 clause 'По project_id или названию' explains how to identify the project but gives no when-to-use guidance or alternatives. An agent gets no help deciding between this and bort_project_get or the aggregate bort_summary.

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