quick_status

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 describes the output (counts, health) but does not explicitly state if it is read-only, what happens on invalid project_path, or any side effects. It implies a safe read operation but lacks explicit behavioral detail.

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?

Concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, second lists what it shows, third gives usage guidance, then parameter description. Every sentence adds value with no 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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and the parameter meaning. It is complete for a simple status tool, though it could optionally clarify error behavior.

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 0% description coverage for the single required parameter. The description compensates by stating 'Absolute path to the project directory', which adds necessary context beyond the schema's title and type.

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 'Get a dashboard overview of the entire project' and lists specific metrics (research files count, patterns status, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on individual aspects or actions, making it unique as a high-level status tool.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Call this FIRST in any workflow to understand the current state', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the instruction to call it first implies its role as an initial step.

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