Get Project Summary

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does state what the summary contains (all boards, their lists, card counts), and 'Get' implies a read operation. However, it does not disclose error behavior, permissions, or whether the summary is computed vs stored.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object and then specifies the scope.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and expected content. It is slightly incomplete because it lacks any usage guidance or parameter documentation, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema make it reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not elaborate on projectId beyond naming the project context. The parameter name is fairly self-explanatory, but the tool description adds no format, examples, or relationship details to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the operation ('Get') and the resource ('project summary'), and specifies the contents: all boards, their lists, and card counts. It is distinguishable from get_project and get_board_summary by the explicit summary scope, though it doesn't name those alternatives.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool over nearby siblings such as get_project_summary vs get_board_summary or get_project. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, so the agent must infer appropriateness from the name alone.

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