sdlc_get_project_summary

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the markdown output format, the exact summary fields, and the exclusion of artifact content. No contradictions.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, return contents, exclusion, args, and returns. Every sentence provides value with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return format, and scope. It clearly states what is not returned and points to the alternative tool, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Only one parameter, project_id, is described as a UUID. The description adds little beyond the schema's own parameter description, which already states where to get it (sdlc_list_projects). Since schema coverage is marked 0%, the description provides the essential meaning but no additional guidance.

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 the tool retrieves a detailed summary of a single SDLC project, lists the specific fields returned (name, status, tech stack, artifacts, UI screens), and explicitly excludes artifact content, distinguishing it from sdlc_get_artifact.

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?

Provides explicit direction: use sdlc_get_artifact for artifact content (when-not-to-use), and the schema notes to obtain project_id from sdlc_list_projects, which implies this tool is for summaries after listing projects.

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