get_project_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of set_project_key adds context, but it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is non-destructive, what happens if values are unset, or any return format. This is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and then briefly covering the parameter. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

For a simple getter with one optional parameter, the description adequately lists the returned data (key, tempo, genre) and mentions the association with set_project_key. It lacks explicit return format or edge-case behavior, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 description fully explains the only parameter (user_prompt) as serving telemetry, providing meaning beyond the schema's bare title and default. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, making the parameter's purpose clear.

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 retrieves the project's current tonal center (key/mode), tempo, and genre, using the specific verb 'Get' and naming the exact data resources. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_project_key or get_session_info.

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 gives clear context by noting these values are 'as previously set with set_project_key', which implies this tool is the getter counterpart to set_project_key. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when to avoid using it, so it falls short of full usage guidance.

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