get_test_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. It clearly implies a read-only operation ('Returns') and outlines the scope of the output, but it does not mention potential performance implications, whether tests are executed, or any side effects on the project. It provides adequate but not rich behavioral 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 two sentences long, with the first sentence stating what the tool returns and the second providing a direct use case. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no redundant or fluff wording.

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 tool with one well-specified parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It conveys the purpose, key output items, and a representative question it answers. It could be improved by noting the output format or any limitations, but given the simplicity of the tool, it is adequate.

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% as the single parameter project_root has a clear description ('Absolute path to the TypeScript project root (must contain tsconfig.json)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Returns a bird's-eye view of the project's test structure' and then specifies the exact outputs (coverage rate, most-imported source files, tests with deepest import chains). The use case is clearly framed by 'Use to answer: what is the overall test health of this project?', which differentiates it from the more granular sibling tools like get_affected_tests or get_coverage_gaps.

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?

Provides a clear context for when to use it ('Use to answer: what is the overall test health of this project?'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. Since the sibling tools are more specialized, some implicit differentiation exists, but the absence of explicit exclusions keeps it from a 5.

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