get_project_summary

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

The description implies a read-only operation with no side effects. While annotations are absent, the tool's function is inherently safe and non-destructive, so transparency is high.

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 a single sentence that lists exactly what the tool returns, with no unnecessary words. It is highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple summary tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention that the output is a summary or specify data types, but overall it suffices.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. A baseline score of 4 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?

The description clearly states it retrieves project name, engine version, enabled plugins, and asset counts. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_project_setting (which likely provides detailed settings) and get_engine_version (which only returns engine version).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling inspection tools, it would be helpful to indicate that this is for a quick overview and that more detailed inspection tools exist.

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