project_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the summary's sections (which partially substitutes for the missing output schema), but says nothing about output size, truncation, or how max_tokens affects the result.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the covered dimensions as a compact list. No filler, though the long enumeration is denser than it needs to be.

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 read-only overview tool with no output schema, listing the summary's contents is genuinely helpful, but the definition leaves gaps an agent needs: whether this is the recommended first call, what the output looks like structurally, and how max_tokens bounds it.

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%: workspace is documented, but max_tokens (default 2000, max 32000) has no description and the tool description does not explain what it controls or what happens when the summary exceeds it. With half the parameters undocumented and no compensating text, this falls below the baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Summarize the project') and enumerates the dimensions covered (purpose, size, entry points, architecture, layout, dependency layers, tech stack, tests, build). An agent can distinguish it from narrower siblings like symbols or call_graph, though the description never explicitly says it is the high-level overview entry point.

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?

No statement of when to use this vs. explore_codebase, bootstrap, capabilities or the individual query tools. The only usage signal is the schema's 'default: this project' for workspace, which is parameter-level, not usage guidance.

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