jekyll_project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does disclose two important behavioral traits: 'Does not modify any files' (read-only safety) and 'Never exposes secrets' (security posture). This is meaningful beyond schema, though it omits any detail on error behavior or the meaning of the cryptic 'write mode' field.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the tool's output scope before the usage cue and the two safety guarantees. Every clause carries information and there is no padding or repetition.

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 zero-parameter info tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned summary fields and stating the read-only/security guarantees. The one gap is that 'current write mode' is left unexplained, but overall the agent has enough to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter surface for the description to clarify; the calibration baseline for a zero-param tool is 4. Nothing is contradicted or left ambiguous in the parameter dimension.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Return a high-level summary of the Jekyll project') and then enumerates exactly what the summary contains (site status, layout/include/component counts, SCSS/JS/docs presence, write mode). This aggregate framing makes it functionally distinguishable from per-resource siblings such as jekyll_layout_list and jekyll_component_list without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit routing cue, 'Use this first to orient yourself,' which tells the agent when to reach for this tool in the workflow. It does not, however, name any alternative tool or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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