mcquest_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It leads with 'READ ONLY', explicitly signaling that the tool is safe and non-mutating, and then explains what it returns. For a zero-parameter read-only informational tool, this level of behavioral disclosure is adequate, although it doesn't mention potential latency or internal behavior.

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?

Three short sentences are used: the read-only hint, the action and scope, and the usage recommendation. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence pulls its weight without unnecessary detail.

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 tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return structure. It provides purpose, expected contents, and a clear invocation time, making the information complete for an agent to select and call it 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 and schema description coverage is 100% by definition. With no parameters to explain, the baseline of 4 applies; the description adds nothing about parameters but nothing is needed.

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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource 'a compact overview of the MCQuest project structure', listing the exact outputs: project root, top-level directories, and key configuration files. It is easy to tell apart from file-level or search tools, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'mcquest_project_context', so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 says 'Use this as the first context call before a large investigation,' which gives an explicit, direct usage time. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the contextual cue is strong enough for proper routing.

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