Get Project Info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether the tool fails if no project is open, what format the information comes in, or whether it performs any computation. It does not contradict annotations, but it also contributes nothing beyond the basics.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is concise and to the point, earning full marks for brevity and structure.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. However, it lacks any contextual framing about the 'current' project state, such as what happens if no project is open or how this information might be used. For a simple getter, it is minimally complete, but it would benefit from a sentence indicating the tool's role in the broader workflow.

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 has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description does not introduce any confusion. It does not attempt to explain parameters that do not exist, so this is adequate.

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 it gets information about the current KiCAD project, which is a clear verb+resource but remains vague about what 'information' includes. It does not meaningfully distinguish from sibling tools like get_board_info or get_schematic_view, as those also return project-related data. The description is barely more specific than the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether a project must be open), no indication of what the returned information is useful for, and no comparison to related getter tools. The context where this tool is appropriate is left entirely implicit.

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