project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the return content (file, title, CRS, layer count), which is the primary behavioral trait for a parameterless read. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only, side-effect free, or requires a loaded project, leaving minor gaps.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering the resource and its return fields. The appended Georgian translation is redundant for most agents and slightly dilutes the signal, but the entry remains very short.

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?

No output schema, so the description's enumeration of returned fields is exactly the compensation needed, and no annotations or params exist to leave undocumented. Only the silence on prerequisites (a loaded project) and sibling boundaries keeps it from being fully complete.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 resource (the current project) and enumerates the returned fields: file, title, CRS, layer count. An agent immediately knows this is a read of project-level metadata. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like qgis_status or layer_info, which could confuse selection.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: the description never says to call this before export/save, nor distinguishes it from qgis_status (overall app status) or layer_info (single-layer metadata). The agent must infer the boundary from the name alone.

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