project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only info lookup by listing metadata fields, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, whether it operates on the current project, or how errors such as 'no project open' are handled.

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 a single tight sentence that front-loads the resource category and the key returned fields. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter metadata retrieval tool, the field list provides enough information for an agent to know what it will get. The main gap is not explicitly stating the scope (e.g., current project) or output format, but the low complexity keeps this adequate.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 identifies the resource as 'Project + app metadata' and enumerates specific fields ('name, folder, version, cook rate'), so the tool's purpose is clear. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not distinguish itself from similar siblings such as system_info or project_versions, but the resource and field list are specific enough.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like system_info, par_info, or project_snapshot. The noun-phrase description implies read-only metadata retrieval, but it gives no context, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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