getBuildInfo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of indicating safety and behavior. 'Get' plus the listed read-only fields strongly implies a non-mutating operation, and the description states exactly what is returned. It does not discuss auth or absence of an active project, but for a zero-parameter getter this is sufficient.

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, front-loaded sentence with an immediate verb-resource pair and a compact parenthetical list of returned content. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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 no-parameter read tool, the description adequately covers the resource, the active-project context, and the output fields. It does not explain how the active project is determined or what happens if none exists, but that goes beyond the minimum needed for safe invocation.

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 augment. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter-related detail.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'active project' and enumerates the returned information (size, bounding box, block counts). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like listProjects and switchProject, which focus on project listing or selection rather than summary metrics.

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 identifies the target context ('active project') and the nature of the data (summary), so when to use it is implied. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or mention when not to use it, leaving some guidance to inference.

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