ae_get_project_info

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

The description clarifies that this is a summary-only read operation and explicitly lists the returned data, which is useful. However, with no annotations to rely on, it does not mention what happens if no project is open, how 'concise' vs 'detailed' affects the output, or whether any side effects occur.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The main purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is a single clause in the second sentence.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description gives the essential purpose and output fields. Yet it omits the meaning of the response_format choices and any prerequisite or error behavior for when no project is open, and there is no output schema to fill those gaps.

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 only parameter, response_format, has a clear enum and default in the schema, but the description never mentions it. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining how 'concise' or 'detailed' changes the summary.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the open AE project summary,' then lists the exact fields returned (name, path, bits, composition index). It also distinguishes itself from heavier introspection via 'Prefer this over dumping the full project tree,' making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 phrase 'Prefer this over dumping the full project tree' gives clear context for when this lightweight summary tool is a better choice than a heavier operation. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool or state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient for basic routing.

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