get_project_info

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (formatted string), the special 'inbox' value, and that all tasks are included. It does not explicitly state read-only, but 'Get' and 'view' imply no mutation. Additional error-handling details would improve 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 well-structured with a concise summary, a brief expansion, and clearly labeled Args/Returns/Examples. Each section earns its place without unnecessary redundancy.

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 parameter) and lack of annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: input, output format, and special behavior. It could be more complete by stating read-only status or error handling, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate fully. It does so by explaining the project_id parameter (ID or 'inbox') and providing concrete examples, adding meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 the tool gets comprehensive information about a single project, including both project metadata and all tasks. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_all_projects (which lists projects) and query_tasks (which searches tasks), as it provides a combined single-project view.

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 implies use when a complete view of one project is needed ('complete view of a project in one call'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It provides clear context and examples, but lacks explicit exclusions.

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