getProjectSummary

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: the summary spans only the open-issue set and includes specifics like estimated-vs-spent hours and distributions. It does not mention auth or rate limits, but those are not essential given the annotation coverage. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentence with a clear purpose and a final usage pointer. Every clause adds measurable detail (totals, distributions, overdue, hours). It is moderately long, but the information is front-loaded and no filler exists.

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 aggregation tool with two parameters, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description leaves nothing essential uncovered. It clearly explains what the tool returns (aggregates), how scope is controlled (milestone), and when to choose listIssues instead. An agent can invoke this tool correctly based solely on the given description plus schema.

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 100%, and both parameters are already described ('Project identifier or numeric ID', 'Version/milestone ID; from listVersions'). The description's 'optionally scoped to a milestone' only echoes the existing optional parameter. The schema carries the semantic load, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Summarize') and a concrete resource ('one project's issue health'), then enumerates distinct facets (totals, status/tracker/priority/assignee distributions, overdue, hours). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling listIssues, so an agent can tell them apart without opening their schemas.

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?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Use listIssues when issue records are needed instead of aggregates.' This names an alternative and gives the exact condition that triggers the switch. It also states the optional scope of 'to a milestone', telling the agent when versionId is useful.

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