get_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description covers the output structure but does not mention any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, side effects, authentication requirements, or performance considerations.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output, followed by a brief usage guideline. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient information about what the tool returns and when to use it. It lists the key output fields, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could be more explicit about the exact data format.

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 50% (only 'path' has a description). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides. With moderate coverage, the description adds marginal value, thus a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool returns a structured snapshot of the project or module, listing specific fields (name, purpose, stack, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from reading README/CLAUDE.md, showing differentiation from potential alternatives.

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 when to use this tool (session start for orientation) and when to prefer it over alternatives (reading README/CLAUDE.md for machine-readable fields). However, it does not discuss when not to use it relative to other sibling tools like search_repo or find_definition.

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