Project info

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the return payload (dirty flag, item list with type/summary, active item) even though no output schema exists. It does not cover the multi-instance addressing behavior, but that is documented in 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?

A single compact sentence listing the payload, followed by a two-word directive. No filler, and the enumerable content is front-loaded before the 'Start here' call to action.

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 zero-required-param, read-only info tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields is the key completeness requirement and it is met. The only gap is clarifying its position relative to the comp/layer info siblings, which 'Start here' only loosely implies.

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?

Only one optional parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the detailed `instance` semantics live entirely in the schema. The description adds nothing about instance selection, which is acceptable at the baseline given full schema coverage.

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 names the resource (project) and enumerates exactly what is returned: file path, dirty flag, items with type/summary, active item. This distinguishes it implicitly from ae_comp_info and ae_layer_info, which are the comp- and layer-level counterparts, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Start here.' gives an implied entry-point hint, telling the agent this is a reasonable first call before drilling into comps/layers. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so guidance remains inferred rather than stated.

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