get_overview

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, the description discloses output shape behavior: results are 'compact by default' with additional blocks available on request and discoverable via a `more` field. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations. It stops short of saying anything about size, latency, or whether requesting many blocks is expensive.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the routing rule, then parameter detail — every sentence carries information. Slightly clipped prose ('named in ``more``') and the double-backtick markup make a couple of lines harder to parse than necessary.

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 zero-required-parameter orientation tool with an output schema, the essentials are present: what it returns, how to expand it, when to call it, and how to scope by repo. The remaining gap is that the mechanics of requesting extra blocks (via `include` versus via `more`) and the meaning of each block are left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: `repo` accepts an alias, path, or ID, and the special value 'all' for cross-repo links; `include` enumerates eleven valid block names. What it does not do is explain what each block contains or confirm these are the only accepted values, so the agent must guess at the cost of requesting each one.

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?

Names the resource (a repo) and enumerates the concrete payload — packages, entry points, riskiest files, top actions — so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It also explicitly contrasts itself with get_context and get_answer, making it separable from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

'Orientation for an unfamiliar repo' plus 'Once per session; then use get_context or get_answer' gives both the triggering condition and the named follow-up alternatives. The recursion/frequency limit (once per session) is stated outright, which is unusually strong guidance.

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