history_get_project_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation does not load conversation transcripts, implying a lightweight read. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, what 'durable overview' contains, or error behavior.

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?

A single sentence with no filler; the information is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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?

With no annotations or output schema, the description provides core purpose and one distinguishing behavior, but omits parameter details, explicit alternative tool references, and return format. It is adequate for a simple getter but has gaps.

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 has one parameter 'project' with no description (0% coverage). The description fails to explain the parameter format or whether it is required (required params = 0). The name 'project' is self-evident but no further guidance is given.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and identifies a distinct resource ('durable overview of a project') while explicitly differentiating from sibling tools that load conversation transcripts (like history_get_thread). This clearly communicates what the tool does and how it differs.

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?

It clearly indicates the use case: retrieving a project overview without loading full transcripts, which implies when to prefer this over history_get_thread. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, preventing a 5.

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