get_project_info

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

Besides readOnlyHint=true, description adds speed, offline nature, and specific metadata fields read. No destructive behavior implied, and context is sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Single focused sentence in German, well-structured with front-loaded purpose and detail. No wasted words, though slightly longer due to listing fields.

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?

Given single parameter and read-only nature, description covers purpose, output fields, and mode of operation. No output schema, but the return data is enumerated, making it complete enough.

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?

Only one parameter (project_path) with 0% schema description coverage. Description does not explicitly describe the parameter but the context (reading project files) and parameter name imply it's the project path. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Description clearly states the tool reads project metadata from files without starting editor, listing specific fields (Unity version, changeset, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling get_project_info_live which likely requires editor running.

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?

Explicitly mentions 'schnell, ohne Editor-Start' indicating fast offline usage. Implicitly contrasts with get_project_info_live, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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