Get Project Overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that the overview aggregates graph, report, connection, credit, and deep-link metadata, setting clear expectations for what the agent will receive.

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 efficiently states the action, resource, and relevant content categories. Every component listed adds value, and there is no filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 tool with no required parameters, full schema documentation, and an output schema present, the description covers purpose, composition, and audience sufficiently. Defaults and return values are already handled by the schema and output schema; the only minor gap is explicit sibling-routing guidance, which is penalized under usage guidelines.

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 schema covers 100% of the four parameters with meaningful descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but none are needed because the schema already documents each parameter's defaults and behavior.

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 ('Fetch') and identifies a distinct resource ('Cloudeval project cockpit overview') with concrete components: graph, report, connection, credit, and deep-link metadata. This distinguishes it from more granular sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from.

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 'cockpit overview' phrasing implies a consolidated, at-a-glance use case, and 'for IDE and agent workflows' signals intended context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria among many sibling tools.

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