project_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does signal a read-style operation and, unusually, enumerates the returned fields, which substitutes for the missing output schema. It says nothing about behavior on a non-project directory, permission needs, or whether 'resolved commands' are computed dynamically.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and immediately followed by the concrete field list. No filler, nothing to trim.

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?

The return-field enumeration is exactly what's needed given there is no output schema and no annotations. The remaining gap is the lone repo_path argument and edge-case behavior for non-project paths, which the description leaves entirely implicit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions repo_path, so it adds no meaning: absolute vs relative, whether it must be the repo root, or what happens if the path is not a project is unspecified. With a single undocumented parameter, the description should compensate and does not.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get') and enumerates exactly what the resource contains: language, framework, package manager, resolved commands, and git branch/remotes. That enumeration distinguishes it from generic siblings like list_directory, but it never explicitly contrasts with the very similar project_detect or project_health.

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 call this versus project_detect, project_health, or the individual run_tests/run_lint/run_build tools. An agent must infer from the field list alone that this is the discovery step before running commands.

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