Painel de um projeto

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context beyond annotations, such as the 92-day maximum period and clarifies the inflow-vs-completion metric, though it does not describe output structure or pagination.

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 entire description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the metrics efficiently. The parenthetical flourish about the project 'sinking' is stylistic but not wasteful, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 report with no output schema, the description covers the main returned dimensions and the date-range limit. It lacks explicit return format or response shape, but the listed metrics provide enough context for selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter has a description, providing a solid baseline. The description adds a period constraint (92 days) and reinforces the project parameter behavior, but it does not materially change understanding beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 defines a project status dashboard and enumerates specific metrics (totals, completed, open, late, board distribution, priority distribution, inflow vs. outflow). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project_risks and projects_list by its summary-report scope, though it lacks a direct imperative verb.

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 phrase 'Como um projeto está' establishes the context for when to use this tool: to obtain a project status overview. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose it over more specific sibling tools.

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