fl_get_project_summary

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds the scope of data read (counts, dirty state, version, transport state), which is useful context but doesn't clarify what 'dirty state' entails or the nature of the return. No contradiction with annotations; with the annotations present, the bar is lower and this adds acceptable value.

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 11-word sentence, front-loaded with the active verb and resource, then an efficient enumeration of content areas. Every word earns its place with zero fluff. This is model concise writing for a zero-param read tool.

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-parameter, read-only tool with a present output schema (which covers return values) and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It enumerates the data domains covered. The only gap is not addressing the overlap with fl_get_transport_state and fl_get_project_history, which is a minor omission given the low complexity.

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 has zero parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to document — schema coverage is 100% vacuously. No parameter description is needed and none is provided, which is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource scope ('project metadata, counts, dirty state, version, and transport state'). The name 'project summary' plus the enumerated content makes the purpose concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping siblings like fl_get_transport_state, which also reads transport state, but the breadth of the summary is clear enough on its own.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Critically, the description silently overlaps with fl_get_transport_state (transport state) and fl_get_project_history without noting when to prefer one over the other. Usage context is only implicit in the tool name itself; there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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