Get project metadata

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that parentId appears only for bound projects and that no code content is included, which helps the agent set expectations beyond the 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?

Three sentences deliver the return fields, the key exclusion, the sibling alternative, and the primary use cases. Every sentence earns its place, with the most important information front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only metadata tool, the description covers what is returned, what is not returned, when to use it, and what to use instead. Annotations handle the safety and idempotency context, and the input schema fully defines the parameter. Nothing critical is missing.

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% and the script_id property is already well-documented with format and source guidance. The tool description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 states a precise verb ('Returns') and resource ('project's metadata'), enumerates the exact fields returned, and explicitly differentiates itself from get_project_content by noting no code is included. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from its siblings.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use this tool: to verify a scriptId exists and to check whether a project is standalone or bound. It also names an alternative (get_project_content) for when file contents are needed. It doesn't enumerate every condition for all siblings, but the guidance is sufficient for the main decision points.

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