project_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. While 'get' implies a read operation, the description does not clarify the return format (e.g., counts, lists), whether it includes all items or only active ones, or any other side effects or permissions. The full burden of transparency is unmet.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb and conveys the essential information. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should explain what the summary contains. It mentions 'by type and status' but does not specify whether the output is a count, list, or other aggregation. It also does not differentiate from similar tools, but for a simple zero-parameter tool, this is minimally viable.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. With a schema description coverage of 100% and no parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, so it scores at the baseline.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get summary of items by type and status for current project.' It names a specific verb ('get'), resource ('summary of items'), and scope ('current project'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar sibling tools like get_item_metrics, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_items or get_item_metrics. It simply states what the tool does without any contextual cues about when it is the preferred choice.

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