get_project_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 describes what the tool does (summarize) and what the output includes, but does not explicitly disclose whether it is read-only, side effects, or auth requirements. The verb 'summarize' strongly implies read-only, but explicit disclosure would improve 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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an args section. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, and every word contributes value. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's output nature (dates, counts, completion, outline) and provides guidance for the parameter. It does not detail the exact return format, but the description gives sufficient context for an AI agent to understand what to expect.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a clear explanation for the 'path' parameter: 'Absolute path to the .pod file (use list_projects to find it).' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and title, including a prerequisite hint. For a single parameter, this is effective.

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's action ('Summarize') and resource ('.pod project'), and specifies the summary contents (dates, counts, completion, top-level outline). It is easy to understand, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools; however, the sibling names are distinct enough to imply different purposes.

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 provides a helpful prerequisite hint ('use list_projects to find it') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or any when-not conditions. Usage context is implied by the tool's purpose, but explicit guidance is lacking.

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