get_project_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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals what the tool returns and implies a read-only operation via 'Get', but it does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, what happens for nonexistent projects, or any permission requirements. This is adequate for a simple get summary but leaves some gaps.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence overview, followed by Args and Returns sections. Every line provides necessary information without any redundant 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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return fields in detail. It provides the essential context (indexed project overview) and input semantics. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit error behavior, but that isn't critical for a straightforward get operation.

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 schema has one parameter 'project' with no description (0% schema coverage), so the description must compensate. It does by saying 'project: Project name' and referring to an 'indexed project', clarifying that the parameter is a project name and must correspond to an already-indexed project. It doesn't provide additional details like case sensitivity or exact-match behavior, but it minimally covers the meaning.

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 specifies the action ('Get a quick overview') and the resource ('an indexed project'), then lists exactly what the overview includes: description, file counts by type, and total chunks. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_document (which fetches a document) and list_projects (which lists projects).

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 phrase 'of an indexed project' provides clear context that the tool applies to projects that have already been indexed, distinguishing it from tools like add_project or list_projects. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it provides clear context without explicit exclusions.

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