summary.project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (does NOT store results automatically), which is valuable. Yet it does not state whether the operation has any side effects, requires special permissions, or returns a specific format. The 'ground-truth–aware' phrasing is vague and does not clarify what happens to the snapshot.

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 long, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the action and inputs, the second clarifies a critical non-behavior. Excellent concision.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description has significant gaps. It does not describe what the snapshot contains, its return format, or any prerequisites/failure conditions. The vague 'project knowledge snapshot' leaves an agent uncertain about the tool's deliverable, and no usage guidance is provided. This is insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 50%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly maps the boolean parameters (include_kb, include_memory, include_files) by naming 'authoritative instruction files, long-term memory, and the knowledge base,' giving agents a semantic model. However, it does not explicitly describe each parameter, and project_root remains minimally explained beyond its name.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('ground-truth–aware project knowledge snapshot'), and names three input sources. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like summary.delta by emphasizing the 'does NOT store results automatically' behavior, which also distinguishes it from memory/kb write tools.

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 implies when to use the tool (whenever a project knowledge snapshot is needed) and mentions that it does not store results, which hints at when not to use it (if persistence is required). However, it lacks explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives like summary.delta or memory/kb tools, and provides no positive selection criteria.

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