get_debt_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not say what the summary contains, whether it requires a prior project analysis, how expensive the scan is, or whether results are cached. For an analysis-triggering tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the resource stated immediately. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves the agent with little to act on beyond the name.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage is a simple case, so the description needn't document return fields. Still, it does not indicate what 'technical debt' means in this system or whether the call is a cheap lookup versus a full scan, leaving the agent under-informed for routing decisions.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Absolute path to the project root directory'), so the schema already handles its meaning. The description adds nothing about the path or its constraints; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the documentation work.

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 and resource: 'Get a quick summary of technical debt in a project.' An agent can tell this returns an aggregate debt view rather than a file-level analysis. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like get_sqale_metrics or get_recommendations, which also summarize quality-related data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over the many sibling reporting tools (get_sqale_metrics, get_vulnerability_report, get_issues_by_severity). The only implicit cue is the word 'quick,' which hints at a lightweight overview but names no alternative or precondition.

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