get_project_summary

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states basic functionality ('Get a compact project summary') and does not mention read-only nature, response format, or any potential limitations or side effects. The word 'compact' is vague but not a meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and free of extraneous words. It conveys the core purpose and key content details efficiently, earning a perfect score.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter for a simple get operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage differentiation from get_project and does not clarify parameter semantics, leaving gaps for an agent deciding between sibling tools.

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 mention project_id. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description fails to explicitly state that a project_id must be provided or how it is used, placing the full burden on the agent to infer from the parameter name alone.

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 ('Get') and resource ('project summary') with detail ('compact', 'including description and writing statistics'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project or list_projects by indicating a summarized view, not a full project detail or list.

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 provided about when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that get_project should be used for full details, or that this is the right choice when only a summary/stats are needed. The agent receives no decision context.

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