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 discloses the output content (total and per-task breakdown) and optional range, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it discuss authentication, side effects, or failure modes. The summary nature implies safety, but it is not explicitly confirmed.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('Resumen de tiempo del proyecto') and then adds the breakdown detail and range option. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 has only two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description covers the output structure and range. However, it does not explain how the project is identified, since there is no project ID parameter and the description simply says 'del proyecto' (of the project). This leaves an implicit dependency on external context, which is a notable gap but not fatal for the simple use case.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear ISO 8601 descriptions. The description adds only that the range is optional, which is already inferable from the schema's required list being empty. Thus, the description adds no significant semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 a project time summary with total and per-task breakdown, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_task_time. However, it lacks an explicit verb, relying on the noun 'Resumen' (summary) rather than a direct action word like 'List' or 'Get', so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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 mentions an optional date range ('con rango opcional'), implying usage for querying summaries within a time period. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_task_time, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not scenarios. Usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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