project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool is non-mutating ('Does not mutate the MD scene'), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose what 'runtime state' includes, whether it can fail, or what the return shape looks like, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded ('Read active project and runtime state'), and the non-mutation guarantee is a useful, concise addition.

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 parameterless read tool, the description is mostly complete: it states what it reads and that it does not mutate. However, it does not clarify what 'runtime state' encompasses or how this differs from scene_info/environment_info, which are likely siblings with overlapping scope. Given the large sibling list, a bit more differentiation would make it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool reads (active project and runtime state), which is sufficient for a parameterless tool. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb ('Read') and resource ('active project and runtime state'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from mutating tools by noting it does not mutate the MD scene. It is not a tautology and is specific enough to be understood, though it doesn't name a sibling alternative.

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 description implies a read-only usage context and explicitly says it does not mutate, which helps an agent know it is safe to call for inspection. However, it does not state when to prefer this over siblings like scene_info or environment_info, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.

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