Summarize Project Audits

Does 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 covered. The description adds useful context about the 'compact coverage view' and the separate use case, but does not describe additional behavioral details like return format or edge cases. This is adequate but not extraordinary.

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 two sentences, with the first conveying the core purpose and the second providing usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy.

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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and relatively simple functionality, the description is mostly complete. It clearly states the operation and usage context. However, the phrase 'compact coverage view' is somewhat ambiguous and the description does not hint at what the summary includes, which could be clearer. Still, for a tool with strong annotation support, the overall context is sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, and its description ('A project-audits/v1 artifact') is minimal. The tool description adds that the artifact is 'existing' and the purpose is summarization, but it does not elaborate on the artifact's structure or how to obtain it. With full schema coverage, this meets the baseline for parameter value.

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 the verb ('Summarize') and the specific resource ('an existing project-audits/v1 artifact'). It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'analyze_repository' by noting that the latter already includes the same result, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 description explicitly says 'Use only when a compact coverage view is needed separately' and points to the alternative 'analyze_repository already includes this result.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, directly comparing to a sibling tool.

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