get_schedule_summary

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has performance implications. It only lists output contents, missing behavioral traits.

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 purpose and lists key output components. It is efficient and to the point, though it could be slightly more structured by separating input vs output hints.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description lacks parameter explanations and behavioral details. It adequately describes the output content but fails to provide enough context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool without additional assumptions.

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 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description does not mention the three parameters (file_path, project_id, project_short_name) at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's type specifications.

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 it provides a comprehensive schedule summary with specific counts and date range. It uses specific terms like activity counts by status, critical activity count, etc., which distinguishes it from more focused sibling tools like get_activity_detail or get_critical_path. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from all siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_activity_detail or get_critical_path. The description implies it is for a broad overview, but does not specify prerequisites or context.

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