get_project_overview

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

Beyond the annotations (which already mark it read-only and idempotent), the description discloses the admin-conditional field visibility, the truncation flag semantics, the request budget to Odoo.sh, and a hard 200-branch cap. That is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and contents, then cleanly separated into Returns, Touches, and Bounds sections. Dense but every clause carries information; only the 'Touches: reads only' line is mildly redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Covers the admin caveat, truncation, and request bounds, which are the tricky behaviors for this tool. Since an output schema exists, the explicit Returns narrative is partly duplicative, but it usefully explains the null and truncated conditions that a schema might not convey semantically.

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% and the single 'project' parameter carries no schema description, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the value is a project name rather than an ID, which is useful, but gives no format, casing, or example guidance.

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?

Specific verb ('Read the overview') plus resource ('of a project'), and it enumerates exactly what the overview contains (subscription, Odoo version, region, build, branches by stage, plus admin-only fields). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_project_settings and list_projects, which return different slices.

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?

Usage is implied: it says to read the overview 'given by its name' and enumerates the contents, so an agent can infer it fits when a broad snapshot is needed. But there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative (e.g. get_project_settings for configuration details).

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