Summarizes project execution and flags overdue, stale, unassigned, and unplanned active work to show where attention is needed.
Summarize project execution and identify overdue, stale, unassigned, and unplanned active work.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | No | ||
| attention_limit | No | ||
| stale_after_days | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Summarize' and 'identify' imply a non-mutating computation and it discloses which derived categories are computed, but it says nothing about scope defaults (project_id nullable), cost, or how 'stale' is determined without an explicit threshold.
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?
A single dense sentence with zero filler, and the core action and the signal categories are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing content.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple three-parameter read. However, with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the behavioral and defaulting semantics an agent needs before calling it correctly are absent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what a null project_id means (all projects vs. workspace context), what attention_limit caps the output at, or that stale_after_days controls the 'stale' category it mentions.
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?
States a specific verb (summarize) and object (project execution) plus the concrete signals it surfaces: overdue, stale, unassigned, unplanned active work. It reads clearly as a read-only briefing/dashboard tool, though it never names a sibling (audit_work_items, list_work_items, get_project_workflow_context) to contrast against.
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 listed categories (overdue, stale, unassigned, unplanned) imply a project-health triage use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no pointer to the sibling tools that list or audit individual work items.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.