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

The description thoroughly discloses the output structure beyond what annotations provide: it lists canvas dimensions, per-clip summary fields (ids, indices, durations, element counts, voiceover_volume), and audio_tracks (with a detailed field list matching the add_audio shape). Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds rich behavioral context about the data format, which is critical given the absence of an output schema.

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 paragraph of moderate length, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first sentence states the purpose, the second lists contents, and the third gives a usage example. It is clear and efficient, though slightly dense; breaking into bullet points could enhance readability, but it remains well-structured for an agent.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive view of the return values (canvas, per-clip summary, audio_tracks with detailed fields). It also explains the relationship between audio_tracks and the add_audio input shape, which is essential for cross-project workflows. For a one-parameter read-only tool, this description is complete and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 has 100% coverage with a basic description for the single parameter 'project_id' ('The project ID'). The description does not add any additional semantic information about the parameter (e.g., format, constraints, or how to obtain it). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and no extra value is provided by the description.

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 'Get a summary of a project' and enumerates the specific contents (canvas dimensions, per-clip summary, audio_tracks). This provides a precise verb+resource combination, and the detail distinguishes it from sibling get tools (e.g., get_clip, get_article) by specifying the project-level scope and the exact data returned.

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 explicitly advises when to call this tool: 'Call this to understand what's in the project before making changes.' It also provides a concrete workflow example for copying audio tracks to another project using add_audio. This gives clear context and implicit alternatives (e.g., use mutation tools after reading), meeting the criteria for explicit when-to-use guidance.

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