Describe project structure

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the scope (high-level snapshot) and content (modules, types, source sets, versions), but does not contradict annotations. It complements them well, earning a 4.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the main action ('Returns a high-level snapshot') and then lists the relevant details. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is highly concise and effective.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and the annotations fully cover its read-only nature, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to understand and invoke it. It explains the returned content without needing further elaboration, making it complete for this simple 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, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty properties). With zero parameters, the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and does not attempt to; it remains clear and accurate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'high-level snapshot of the configured Android/KMM Gradle project'. It lists the included details (modules, types, source sets, versions), making the purpose unmistakable. Among siblings, this tool is uniquely focused on project structure, so there is no confusion.

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 clearly states what the tool does, but does not explicitly provide when to use it or when not to. Since there are no sibling tools with a similar purpose, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer appropriate usage. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, which prevents a score of 5.

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