redmineflux_core_project_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavioral scope: one call, returns a summary with specific content areas. It also implies read-only behavior by naming the operation as 'summary'. While it doesn't mention limitations or side effects, none are expected for a summary tool, and the disclosed return components add meaningful transparency.

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 well-structured: an opening purpose statement, a returns list, explicit usage triggers, and an arg explanation. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and remains appropriately concise.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present) and the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, and return content. It is self-contained: an agent can confidently decide when to call it and what to expect. No further context is needed.

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 only defines project_id as a required string with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description compensates by explaining that project_id is 'Project identifier or numeric ID', clarifying the accepted input format beyond the raw type. This is valuable additional meaning for the single parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get a comprehensive summary of a project in one call.' It lists concrete return components (description, issue counts by status, version milestones, recent activity), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_project or list_projects. This is more specific than a generic tool description.

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 states when to use it: 'Use this when someone asks "tell me about this project", "what's the status of X?", or "give me an overview."' This gives clear trigger scenarios. However, it does not mention when not to use it or contrast with a specific alternative like get_project, so it only earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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