Get Project Summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the kind of data returned and implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm that no project state is modified, nor does it clarify whether the 'project' parameter can be omitted and resolved from context.

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 states the tool's purpose and lists its output sections without any filler. Every part contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents well. However, it omits usage guidance and does not explain optional-parameter behavior, so an agent may not know when to choose this over related siblings.

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 100% for the single 'project' parameter, so the schema already documents it adequately. The description adds no further parameter detail, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 clear action ('get') and resource ('project summary') and enumerates the summary contents: tasks by status, recent activity, open blockers, and upcoming priorities. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_project_status, but the listed contents make the broader scope evident.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_status, get_blockers, or query. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or hints about which agent intent should route here.

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