get_project

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, so the description's obligation is to add information beyond that, and it adds almost none. "Basic information" is unspecified — no indication of which project attributes are returned, whether anything is cached or scoped to the auth context, or any failure mode when no project is configured.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier ("currently configured") is front-loaded. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but nothing in the text is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the returned fields need not be spelled out, and with zero parameters there are no inputs to cover. Still, for a tool whose only value is the shape of the project object, the description could have noted what scope of information (settings vs. membership vs. metadata) it returns to help an agent decide to call it.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. The implicit point that the project is resolved from the current configuration rather than supplied by the caller is a small useful addition.

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 specific verb and resource ("get ... basic information" of the "currently configured project"), so the agent knows exactly what entity is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like get_current_user or list_project_members, relying on the tool name alone for that separation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling tools that also expose project/context data (get_current_user, list_project_members). The phrase "当前配置" implies no identifier is needed, which is a weak usage hint but not an explicit when-to-use rule.

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