project_get_info

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

No annotations are provided; the description implies a read-only operation via 'Retrieve' but does not disclose error handling, validation of project_path, or side effects. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 extremely concise with three lines including a category and one argument description. No superfluous information is present, and the key action is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, read-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameter. It omits an example or return value details, but output schema compensates.

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 0%, but the description includes 'Args: project_path: Path to the Godot project directory', which adds meaning beyond the schema's simple title. However, it could specify path format or location constraints.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' and identifies the resource as 'metadata about a Godot project'. It is clear and distinct from sibling tools like project_export or project_list, though it doesn't elaborate on what metadata includes.

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 project_get_debug_output or godot_get_version. The description lacks context for optimal usage or exclusions.

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