get_schema_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It partially discloses behavior by listing the content of the overview, but it does not explicitly state it's a read-only operation, any side effects, or the output format. This is a minimal disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence with no extraneous information, achieving high conciseness.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main aspects of what the tool returns. However, it does not specify the exact output structure or whether a repository must be selected, which slightly limits completeness.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with a description for repository_id, so the tool description adds no extra parameter semantics. Baseline score of 3 is applied.

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 'Get an overview' and lists the resource contents (statistics, main classes, properties, namespaces), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives but the aggregate nature distinguishes it implicitly.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like get_statistics or get_namespaces. There are no exclusion conditions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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