get_project_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a safe read and the description does disclose the shape of the result (epic and story counts per project), which is useful, but it says nothing about permissions, cost, or whether the aggregation is expensive or live.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler — the resource and the returned content both appear immediately. Nothing wasted.

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 output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does so at the level of 'counts of epics and stories' per project. The phrase 'comprehensive summary' remains vague about the remaining fields, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is close to adequate.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed by framing the call as a global aggregate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('projects'), and scope ('all projects'), plus the payload ('counts of epics and stories'). It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_summary, which appears to serve a similar summarization role at a different scope.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling summary/project tools (get_summary, list_summaries, get_project). The scope word 'all projects' hints at the use case, but no alternatives or exclusions are named, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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