get_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It merely states 'Get' without explicitly confirming the tool is read-only or non-destructive. For a read operation, this is a missed opportunity to add safety context.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loads the purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it efficiently conveys the main functionality without unnecessary words.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially covers return values by listing some fields but uses 'including', implying incompleteness. For a tool with zero parameters and low complexity, it provides adequate but not exhaustive context.

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 the schema covers 100% by default. The description adds value by listing the specific metadata fields returned (name, version, engine version, main scene), which is informative beyond the empty schema.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves project metadata, listing specific fields (name, version, engine version, main scene). It is distinct from sibling tools that focus on specific aspects like animations or scenes, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from other general getters.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling getters (e.g., get_project_settings, get_scene_tree), there's no contextual hint about which to choose. The description lacks usage context or exclusions.

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