status_summary

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing what the overview contains (format, file count, heading structure), but it does not disclose any further behavioral details such as return format, order, or potential errors. Given the annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate — it adds context but no critical missing behavioral information.

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, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Get a quick overview') and specifies exactly what will be returned. No wasted words, and it is easy to scan.

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 simple read-only tool with a single fully-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the agent will receive. It mentions the three components of the overview, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect. It does not describe output format, but that is not critical for a quick summary tool given the annotation and schema richness.

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 description covers the project_id parameter 100% with detailed guidance including format, example, and when to use the tool. The description field itself does not mention parameters, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 a quick overview') with a clear resource (the project) and enumerates three concrete pieces of information (format, file count, heading structure). This is distinct from the sibling file-editing and compilation tools, so an agent can immediately understand the tool's role.

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 a use case (quick overview) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_file or project_info. The parameter schema includes broader guidance for the tool family ('Only call these tools when the user explicitly asks to work with a Typleaf project...'), but that is not part of the description itself. Since the context is slightly implied, it earns a 3 — clear enough but lacking explicit exclusions.

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