project_metadata

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

Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, potential errors (e.g., if no project is open), or performance characteristics. The word 'snapshot' hints at read-only behavior, but this is not explicit, and no other safety details are given.

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 sentence of 10 words, efficiently front-loading the purpose ('Project snapshot') and listing the returned fields. No wasted words, perfectly concise.

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?

Despite having no parameters, the absence of an output schema makes the description insufficient. The fields like 'signature' and 'selected' are ambiguous (e.g., time signature format? selected track or channel?). The description does not explain field types, formats, or error conditions, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter semantics since there are none, but it does clarify that no inputs are needed, which 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 clearly identifies the tool as returning a snapshot of project metadata including tempo, signature, tracks, channels, patterns, selected, title, and path. This distinguishes it from sibling project tools like project_new or project_open, which are actions rather than read queries.

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, such as reading individual attributes or checking if a project is loaded. The description only lists returned fields, lacking context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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