reqs_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope of the overview (status, priority, progress, coverage gaps, deferred counts) and its dashboard nature, which strongly implies a read-only aggregate operation. It does not explicitly assert read-only behavior, data freshness, or how counts are derived, but for a zero-parameter dashboard these omissions are moderate rather than severe.

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 compact line that front-loads 'Dashboard overview,' enumerates the five metric groups in a scannable dash-separated list, and closes with a two-word directive. Every element earns its place with zero 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?

For a zero-parameter aggregate tool with an output schema that already documents the return shape, the description is complete: it states the tool's role ('Start here'), what content it covers, and requires no parameter guidance. The only unstated element is which sibling handles drill-down, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With zero parameters and an empty schema, there is nothing for the description to document about arguments; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead orients the agent to what the output contains, which is the only meaningful semantic contribution possible for this tool.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Dashboard overview' and enumerates its concrete contents: status breakdown, priority split, section progress, requirements without tests, deferred counts. This distinguishes it from sibling detail tools like reqs_get and reqs_query, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists,' so it falls just short of the highest bar.

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 closing directive 'Start here' is an explicit entry-point instruction, telling the agent to invoke this tool first before drilling into the requirements domain. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., when a filtered query is preferred), so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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