nexus_workspace_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful list of content areas (languages, LOC, git state, index health, entry points), but does not disclose any limitations, return format details, or performance characteristics beyond what the annotations imply.

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 a colon followed by a concise list of content items. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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, parameterless, read-only overview tool, the description provides sufficient context by enumerating the included information categories. There is no output schema, but the list of attributes serves as a reasonable substitute. It lacks explicit notes about return format or potential edge cases, but these are not critical for an overview tool.

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 tool has no parameters (empty properties in schema, 0% required). The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The 'at a glance' phrasing suggests no inputs are required, which is consistent.

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 'Project at a glance: languages, LOC, git state, index health, entry points' clearly states a specific purpose: providing an overview of key project metrics. It identifies the resource (project) and the types of information included, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nexus_repo_map or nexus_git_diff.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or alternative tools. Users are left to infer when a high-level overview is needed.

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