get_project_status

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 rollup status' clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, and the description discloses the aggregated output contents. It does not cover edge behaviors like invalid project IDs, but for a simple status lookup this is adequate.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and output contents are front-loaded, and the practical ID-lookup guidance is appended without redundancy.

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 single-parameter read-only status tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the parameter source, documents the lookup path, and enumerates the expected return fields. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke and interpret this tool is missing.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including an example format and the note to use list_tasks(type: 'project') to find project IDs. The description repeats the list_tasks guidance but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get rollup status of a project', then enumerates exactly what that includes: progress percentage, status breakdown, active agents, overdue tasks, and blockers. This makes it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_tasks, get_usage_report, and get_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 gives clear actionable context: use this tool when you need rollup project status, and it explicitly tells the agent how to discover project IDs via list_tasks(type: 'project'). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is clear enough for a single-purpose read tool.

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