status_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the output contents and the conditional dirty-state attribute, but it does not explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only or describe error behavior or permissions. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every element contributes to explaining the tool's output.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the returned overview contains. It is reasonably complete, though the meaning of 'dirty state' could be more explicit.

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 schema already provides a thorough description of the projectName parameter, including fuzzy names and optionality. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as providing an overview of a project with specific metrics (file count, total size, source, dirty state), making its purpose evident. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_files or list_projects, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieve'.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects or sync_projects. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools, leaving the usage context implied.

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