portfolio_overview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool aggregates all projects and returns computed metrics and flags, grouped via HACKNPLAN_GROUPS. However, it doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, mention data freshness, permissions, or any side effects. Since it's an overview tool, read-only is implied, but the description could be more explicit.

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?

Two sentences with no waste. The key phrase 'ALL-PROJECTS birds-eye view' is front-loaded, and every word in the description earns its place. It efficiently communicates purpose, content, and usage.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the output content (completion %, open/closed counts, flags) and purpose. It could mention how the 'format' parameter affects the returned representation, but that's reasonably inferred. HACKNPLAN_GROUPS isn't explained, but it's likely external context.

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?

The only parameter 'format' has a clear enum (markdown/json) and default, but the description never mentions it. With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description should compensate by explaining when to choose which format, but it doesn't. The parameter is self-explanatory from the schema, but the description adds no value beyond it.

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 and resource: 'ALL-PROJECTS birds-eye view' and clearly states it rolls up every project with completion %, open/closed counts, and flags. It distinguishes itself from siblings by claiming it's a cross-project dashboard with no native equivalent, setting it apart from project-specific tools like get_project_metrics or get_milestone_metrics.

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 description explicitly states ideal use cases: 'how's everything doing', 'what's on fire across all projects', 'portfolio status'. This gives clear context for when to invoke. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context and sibling tools imply it's for portfolio-level queries rather than project-specific ones.

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