Get Project Summary

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

With annotations already indicating read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds no additional behavioral caveats. It does not mention default project selection, performance, or aggregation scope, so it provides little beyond the purpose statement.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words; it efficiently lists the summary's components.

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?

The description lists the return categories but leaves gaps: no default project behavior, no output schema or structure details, and no error conditions. Given the simple tool, it's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 already describes 'project' as 'Optional project identifier' (100% coverage). The tool description does not elaborate on how the identifier is used or what happens when it's omitted, so it doesn't add beyond the schema.

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 'Retrieve a high-level project summary' and explicitly lists content categories (counts, status breakdowns, progress, decisions, blockers). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling node-level tools like get_node or list_nodes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives; the description simply states what it does, leaving usage to be inferred from the high-level summary nature. It does not mention when not to use it or reference any sibling tools.

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