get_project_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It indicates a read operation returning total violations per tool, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior like caching. Adequate but basic.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the main purpose. No unnecessary words; all information is relevant.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main content (totals per tool) but lacks details on the return structure or format. Sibling tools provide context, but a slightly more complete description would clarify output format.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters, and with no parameters, baseline is 4.

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 the tool retrieves a project-level summary of code convention violations, including totals per tool (P3C, ESLint, Stylelint, Checkstyle). It distinguishes from siblings like get_file_violations by focusing on aggregated project-level 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?

The description implies use for high-level summaries but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., get_file_violations for per-file details, check_health for health status). No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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