get_project_overview

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default-date behavior and that the statistics are aggregates, which adds some transparency. However, it does not mention permissions, whether data is live or cached, or any edge-case behavior around the optional date. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: what the tool does, what project to pass, how to format the date, and the default behavior. It lacks sibling-selection guidance, which keeps it from being fully complete, but nothing critical is missing for calling the tool.

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%, and the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters. It explains that 'project' is a CDash project name with a concrete example, and that 'date' is optional, formatted as YYYY-MM-DD, and defaults to today. This gives an agent everything needed to fill the parameters correctly.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get project overview with aggregate build/test/coverage statistics.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_build_details or get_failing_tests by focusing on high-level aggregate data. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_dashboard or get_test_summary. It provides no exclusion criteria, no prerequisite context, and no explicit guidance on when the project overview is the right choice. The use case is only implied by the tool's name and the word 'overview'.

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