get_index_summary

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

The description describes a read-only operation ('Get a high-level summary'), but the annotation destructiveHint=true indicates the tool may cause destructive side effects. This is a direct contradiction. Additionally, no other behavioral traits (e.g., authentication requirements, side effects) are disclosed beyond what annotations provide, which is insufficient for a tool with contradictory annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality, and includes both usage context and return format. Every sentence is informative and concise, with no waste.

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 description details the return format, compensating for the lack of an output schema. It also provides usage context. However, it does not address the contradiction with the destructiveHint annotation, leaving uncertainty about side effects. For a simple zero-parameter tool, this is a noticeable gap that impacts completeness.

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?

There are no parameters, so the input schema is fully covered. The baseline score of 4 applies as per the rule for 0 parameters. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it does not attempt to.

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 high-level summary of all epics with story counts by status. It specifies the action (Get), the resource (epics summary), and the scope (all epics, broken down by status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual items or mutations.

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 explicitly states it is 'useful for situational awareness at the start of a session, without reading every file,' providing clear guidance on when to use it. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, which would strengthen the guidance.

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