get_project_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read with no side effects, but it does not state whether a project must be open, whether anything is mutated, or how costly the call is. It discloses only the rough content of the response.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. For a zero-argument getter, this is appropriately sized and every word carries information.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is the only source of context, and 'project metadata' remains vague about which fields are returned. It is minimally adequate for a simple getter but does not compensate for the absent structured data.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case: there are no argument semantics to explain. The description adds nothing beyond the empty schema, but nothing is missing either.

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?

States a specific verb (return) and resource (current project metadata plus scene counts), so the agent knows exactly what this tool fetches. It does not distinguish itself from related getters such as get_project_crs or get_mass_properties, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions (e.g. a project must be loaded), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer applicability purely from the tool name.

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