p6_project_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the baseline fallback rule ('baseline= else the project baseline'), the 0.01-point mismatch threshold, and how spi_units and percent_complete are computed. It does not cover error cases (e.g. unknown project ID), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but the rest is one enormous run-on sentence with deeply nested parentheses, making it hard to scan. Given there is no output schema the length is defensible, but the structure could be far cleaner (e.g. sectioned bullets).

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, this dense enumeration of return sections is exactly the gap the description should fill, and it does so fairly thoroughly. Annotations cover the safety profile. Remaining gaps are failure behavior and any output-format/pagination notes, which limits it to a 4.

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 only 50%: 'project' is documented but 'baseline' has no schema description. The description compensates by explaining the baseline selection rule — the explicit baseline is used, otherwise the project baseline — which gives the optional parameter real meaning. It adds nothing for 'project' beyond the schema, so not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource — 'One-call overview of a project' — and then enumerates the exact payload sections (dates, activities, relationships, critical, percent_complete, baseline, counts, schedule_state). It partially differentiates from siblings by noting that detail lives in p6_critical_path, p6_list_wbs and p6_progress_curve, but it never states a clean one-line boundary against those tools.

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: the 'one-call overview' framing suggests use when a broad snapshot is needed, and sibling references hint where to go for detail, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement. The mentions of p6_progress_curve and p6_list_wbs are data-equivalence notes rather than routing guidance.

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