Get project info

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful traits beyond that: the tool is 'quick', the file path is null when the project has never been saved, and it enumerates the return payload since no output schema exists. It does not mention behavior when no project is open, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, neither padded. The return contents are front-loaded before the routing guidance, so an agent skimming the first clause already knows what it gets back.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and it does so field by field, plus it routes every adjacent need to the correct sibling. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends no words on arguments.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Summary of the open project') and then enumerates exactly what that summary contains: file path, dirty state, item counts, bit depth, render queue size, active item. An agent can tell immediately that this is orientation/overview and not a listing tool like ae_list_comps.

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?

Gives an explicit ordering instruction ('call it first to orient') and then names four alternatives with their respective domains: ae_status for connection/permission mode, ae_list_comps / ae_list_items for comps and items, ae_project_health for problems, ae_project_xray for how a project works. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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