Leer proyecto de REAPER

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals non-modifying behavior, and the description adds 'sin modificarlo' to reinforce this. It also clarifies the tool only reads 'estado básico', adding a scope constraint. However, it does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations and the simple nature of the tool provide.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and scope. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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 0-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the operation, target resource, and non-modifying nature. There is no missing context required for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies per the rubric, and the description appropriately doesn't attempt to document nonexistent parameters.

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 reads tracks and basic state of the active project via the verb 'Lee' and resource 'pistas y estado básico del proyecto activo'. It also notes the tool does not modify anything. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling get_track_state, the project-level scope makes its purpose 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 description implies the tool is for reading the active project's tracks and state, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like get_track_state. No exclusions or when-not-to-use scenarios are mentioned, making usage guidance minimal but not misleading.

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