get_project_info

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

The description mentions running `dbt debug` for diagnostics, adding behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, failure modes, or required permissions. With no annotations, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 somewhat verbose with internal implementation details (like ctx and state) that are not useful for tool users. The core purpose is stated concisely, but the extra boilerplate reduces clarity.

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 the tool has a single parameter and an output schema (stated in context), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter behavior. It lacks detail on what specific information is returned but is otherwise complete for its complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description provides essential semantics for the single parameter run_debug, explaining its function and default. This compensates well for the lack of schema-level descriptions.

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 it retrieves dbt project information with optional diagnostics, and the name aligns with this purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_resource_info, which might cause ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_resource_info for specific resources). It only implies diagnostic use via the run_debug parameter but lacks explicit context.

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