get_overlay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the content of `.ai/project.md` and other overlays indicated in the profile, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether the tool can fail (e.g., missing overlay), whether it reads from the local filesystem, or any side effects. It is a read operation by nature, but that is not explicitly stated.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The Returns section adds useful detail about the specific files involved. It is efficient, though the Polish language may be slightly less universally accessible than English for an AI agent, and the Returns block could be considered redundant with the first sentence.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete for a simple fetch operation. However, it lacks context about failure modes (e.g., what happens if `.ai/project.md` does not exist), whether the overlay is loaded from the current workspace, and how the returned string is formatted. These gaps are minor for a zero-parameter read tool but still leave some ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to rely on. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns and where the content comes from (`.ai/project.md` and profile-indicated overlays). With 0 params, a baseline of 4 is appropriate because the description clarifies the tool's input-free nature and its output source.

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 states a specific verb ('Pobierz' = download/fetch) and resource ('overlay projektu' = project overlay), and clarifies it contains unique instructions for this repo. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying it retrieves `.ai/project.md` and other overlays indicated in the profile, which is a clear purpose even though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 description implies when to use it: when you need the project-specific overlay instructions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings like get_language or get_codegen. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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