get_project_overview

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

No annotations provided, but the description implies a read-only behavior by stating it retrieves statistics. It does not mention side effects or authorization needs, but the nature of the tool (aggregation) suggests safety. Could be improved by explicitly stating it does not modify data.

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?

Two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, usage context, and limitations. No unnecessary 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?

For a simple read-only aggregation tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns (counts/distributions), and how it differs from detail tools.

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 description does not explain the single parameter (path). Schema description coverage is 0% (the top-level parameter lacks a description field), so the tool description should have compensated. However, the schema includes a description inside the nested definition, but the tool description itself adds no parameter context.

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 clearly states it gets aggregate statistics about the entire project, specifying contract counts by type, function counts by visibility, and security findings by impact level. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by directing users to list_contracts and run_detectors for details.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'as a starting point when exploring an unfamiliar codebase or generating project summaries.' Also clarifies what it does not provide ('not detailed data') and recommends alternative tools for detailed analysis.

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