bort_summary

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes the shape of the output (aggregates, deadline-state list), which is useful, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, permission requirements, cost/rate limits, or the effect of the scope parameter beyond its literal values.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding; the core purpose is front-loaded before the scope values. Efficient, though the raw enum dump at the end is slightly terse rather than integrated.

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 be self-sufficient, and it is not: the q parameter is undocumented, there is no differentiation from the near-identical sibling bort_project_summary, and no behavioral profile is given for a tool whose return content is only partially described.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for scope by listing the enumerated values open|active|all, which the schema does not declare, but the q parameter (likely a search/filter string) is left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb+resource (project summary) and enumerates what it contains: aggregates (money, overdue/burning counters) and a list with deadline state. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling bort_project_summary, which appears to cover overlapping ground, so an agent cannot tell the two apart.

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 only usage signal is the scope enumeration (open|active|all), which hints at filtering context but does not say when to use this tool rather than bort_project_summary or bort_project_list. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection guidance are provided.

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