project_get_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, but there is no mention of what happens if no project is open, whether errors are returned, what the response structure looks like, or how each info_type behaves. An agent has no behavioral guarantees beyond the inferred read-only nature.

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 short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by a compact parameter definition. It wastes no words. The docstring-style 'Args:' formatting is slightly awkward for an MCP tool description but acceptable and efficient.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description is the only source of contract information. It lists the six info types but does not describe what data each returns, the output format, or failure behavior. For a multi-mode retrieval tool, this is a significant completeness gap; an agent cannot predict the return shape for Tracks versus Labels, for example.

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 schema provides zero description coverage and no enum for info_type, so the description must compensate — and it does, by enumerating the six valid values: Tracks, Clips, Envelopes, Labels, Boxes, Commands. This is essential information the structured schema lacks. However, the description stops at listing values and does not explain what each info_type returns.

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 states a clear verb+resource ('Get information about the current project'), and identifies this as a project-scoped read tool. It is implicitly distinguished from siblings like track_get_info by the project-level scope, though no alternative is named explicitly. Minor gap: 'current project' is not precisely defined, and there is no explicit differentiation from other project_* tools.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The info_type list hints at the six retrieval modes but the description never states when this should be called instead of track_get_info or other info-gathering tools, nor does it explain what 'current project' means or whether a project must be open first.

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