Project Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly implies no side effects. It adds that it returns three specific pieces of info but does not disclose potential behavior like file existence checks or project loading delays. The description is consistent with annotations and provides minimal extra transparency.

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, focused sentence that directly states the return values. No extra words, front-loaded with the key output. Appropriate length for the tool's simplicity.

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?

While the description lists what is returned, it lacks context about how the 'file' parameter is used (e.g., to identify the project) or the typical usage pattern. Given no output schema, a bit more detail on the return format would help. However, for a simple read tool with good annotations and schema, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add any information about how parameters affect the result beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain that 'file' determines which project to query or that needFileNameList controls the file list). Baseline 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 clearly states what the tool returns: tsconfig.json path, full file list, and language service activity. It uses specific verbs and resources, and the returned data distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on completions, definitions, etc.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 35+ sibling tools, the agent needs explicit context on when projectInfo is appropriate (e.g., 'Use this to get project metadata before performing other operations'). No when/when-not information is given.

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