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 behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'Get' and the term 'overview' imply a read-only operation, and the listed components clarify what kind of data will be surfaced. However, it does not state side effects, permission needs, performance costs, or how the data is aggregated.

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, front-loads the core purpose, and wastes no words. The additional 'Great for getting up to speed' is a brief, useful usage signal rather than filler.

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 tool's low complexity (one required parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately communicates what the response will cover. It enumerates the major output areas, though it does not specify the response format or note any limitations such as recency windows or filtering behavior.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'project' parameter already has a description: 'Project name or ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints about the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a full overview of a project' and enumerates the components (active tasks, recent decisions, blockers, last session summary). However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from closely named siblings like get_project_summary or get_blockers, so it falls short of full clarity.

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 phrase 'Great for getting up to speed' implies a use case, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_project_summary, list_tasks, list_decisions, or get_blockers. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are provided.

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