vpp_project_info

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

With no annotations, "Podsumowanie" only implies a non-mutating inspection and does not explicitly confirm that the project is left unchanged. It also leaves unclear whether the tool parses the file directly or interacts with VP, and whether an already-open file affects execution.

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 compact, front-loaded statement with no filler. Its enumerated details all help establish the tool's scope.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient to understand the requested operation. The undocumented path semantics and unclear file/VP interaction and safety behavior remain meaningful invocation gaps.

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 schema gives the required path parameter no description, and the description only indirectly indicates that it should identify a .vpp project. It does not explicitly define path as the filesystem path to an existing project file or clarify any path-handling expectations.

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 identifies the tool as providing a .vpp project summary and enumerates its scope: diagrams, model-element counts, actors, use cases, relationships, and whether the file is open in VP. It does not explicitly distinguish this broad overview from the sibling list and detail tools.

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 listed contents imply that the tool is intended for a high-level project overview rather than detailed retrieval of individual model elements. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives such as vpp_list_classes, vpp_list_relationships, or vpp_get_sequence_diagram.

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