get_smart_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns a 'concise, actionable summary' but does not describe the output format, whether it is a read-only operation, how the summary is generated, or any side effects. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes a useful qualifier ('instead of full issue list'). No wasted words; it is concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the basic purpose for selection but lacks details about return value structure and edge cases. Given the simplicity, it is minimally complete but not rich enough to fully inform an agent about expected output.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter descriptions (projectPath is described as 'Path to the project'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 the tool provides a 'concise, actionable summary of code quality', which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from a 'full issue list' but does not explicitly name sibling tools, leaving some ambiguity among get_recommendations, get_quick_wins, and get_trends. Thus it is clear but not fully distinctive.

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 'instead of full issue list' implies the tool should be used when a summary is preferred over a detailed list, which is useful context. However, no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives are given, and sibling tools like get_recommendations or get_quick_wins are not mentioned. Usage guidance is primarily implied.

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