rms_overview

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

With no annotations, the description provides crucial behavioral info: fail-closed on missing project context, single-project scope. This goes beyond basic purpose and helps the agent understand failure mode and constraints.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a note. Front-loaded with the key purpose and outcome. Every sentence adds information without fluff.

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 overview tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and its failure conditions. No additional context needed for effective 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 description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining when 'project' is needed (when no workspace root) and setting context for usage, improving parameter understanding beyond schema.

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 it provides a 'structured orientation summary for exactly one project' including specific elements like document counts, recent notes, and active checkpoints. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rms_checkpoint_load and rms_search.

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?

Explicitly advises 'Call this at session start' and notes fail-closed behavior requiring a bound workspace or project key. Does not list alternatives but the constraint 'never aggregates across projects' helps decide when not to use.

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