program_summary

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 does disclose the content scope (framework, files, functions, types, variables, capabilities), which gives useful context about what the tool returns. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, nor does it mention any prerequisites or error conditions. The disclosure is limited to the summary contents.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Executive summary') and uses a colon to efficiently list the covered items. Every word earns its place; there is 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?

The tool is relatively simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description lists what the summary includes, which is helpful. However, it does not indicate the output format (e.g., markdown, structured object) or clarify how it aggregates information vs. the many sibling listing tools. Some additional context on return shape and relationship to load state would improve completeness.

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 one parameter 'name' with a clear description ('Name or path of the loaded project'), and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already sufficiently documents the 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 clearly states the tool provides an executive summary of a loaded project and enumerates the scope (framework, files, functions, types, variables, capabilities). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects (e.g., list_functions, list_files). However, it does not explicitly use a verb like 'returns' or 'generates', leaving the action slightly implicit, and it could more sharply contrast with the list-oriented siblings.

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 phrase 'of a loaded project' implies the tool should be used after a project has been loaded, and the summary nature suggests it is for a high-level overview. However, there is no explicit when-to-use instruction, nor does it name alternatives or say when not to use it. Guidance is implied but not stated.

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