读取项目概览

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific return fields and that counts are included, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it does not describe any other behavioral aspects such as error handling or performance characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists all returned data efficiently. There is no redundancy or wasted words.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately details what the tool returns (goals, owner, phases, and counts). It is complete for a simple read operation with one obvious parameter, and the annotations cover safety. No critical information for calling the tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented project_id parameter. It does not explain the parameter at all. While project_id is self-evident from the name, the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides (a string with length constraints).

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 states a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (项目概览/project overview), and enumerates the exact content: goals, owner, phases, and counts of knowledge, evidence, decisions, tasks, receipts. It is clear and specific, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling project_snapshot, so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_list or project_snapshot. The description implies a read operation for overview data but provides no explicit context, exclusions, or recommendations. An agent must infer usage.

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