project_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Summarise' implies a read-only aggregate and the enumerated contents effectively describe what is computed (must-coverage, RICE leader, missing items), which is useful. However, it says nothing about whether it mutates state, cost/latency on large projects, or how empty/partial projects are handled.

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 with the verb and scope first, followed by a compact enumeration. The list of summary components is dense but each item conveys real information about the returned payload, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the return value, and it does so reasonably by enumerating the summary sections. It is still incomplete on parameter provenance, behavior for projects with no requirements/stories, and whether the summary is read-only.

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 0% and the single required parameter projectId has no description in either the schema or the description text. The name is fairly self-evident, but the description does not say where to obtain a valid id (e.g. list_projects) or what an invalid id does, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Summarise a project's progress') and then enumerates the exact contents of the summary (requirements by priority/status, story coverage of musts, acceptance criteria done, RICE leader, Jira links, gaps to close). This clearly separates it from CRUD siblings like get_project or list_requirements. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for a progress/health overview, but the description never says when to prefer it over get_project, export_dashboard, or export_backlog, and gives no preconditions (e.g. project must exist, may be empty). No when-not-to-use guidance is present.

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