history_get_project_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the 'durable' nature and the fact that it avoids loading transcripts, which hints at non-destructive, lightweight behavior. However, it does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or describe side effects/permissions, leaving some ambiguity.

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 that is clear and free of filler. It communicates the core purpose and key differentiator efficiently.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the 'overview' contains or how to specify the project. It does explain the benefit over transcript loading, but leaves out return value details and the nuanced role of both parameters, making it only moderately complete for an agent.

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 only 50%: 'project_path' has a description, but 'project' is undocumented. The tool description does not explain either parameter or their relationship, leaving the agent without guidance on how to disambiguate when both are provided.

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 the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'durable overview of a project.' It also distinguishes from siblings by adding 'without loading conversation transcripts,' which separates it from tools like history_get_thread or history_get_recent_context.

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 the intended use case: when you need a quick overview and want to avoid loading full transcripts. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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