proj_get_options

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It makes clear this is a non-mutating read ('Get', 'Returns configuration details') and enumerates the categories of configuration surfaced, which is genuine information. However, it says nothing about failure modes (e.g., invalid or non-open project path), whether the active project must be open, or caching/staleness of the returned configuration.

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 opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the body is padded: 'Returns configuration details including...' and the separate 'Returns:' block restate the same field list, and much of it duplicates the output schema. There is real redundancy rather than compression.

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 description need not enumerate return fields, yet it spends most of its length doing exactly that. The gaps that matter for correct invocation (relationship to sibling configuration/stats tools, preconditions on the project being open) are left unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value by explaining that project_path is optional and that omitting it targets the active project. That is a meaningful semantic not present in the schema, but nothing is said about accepted path formats or what happens when a supplied path is not an open project.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get project options' followed by the categories returned (output path, hierarchy mode, compiler settings). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from near-siblings like proj_get_parameters, proj_get_stats, or proj_get_path, so an agent must open schemas to disambiguate.

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 only usage guidance is embedded in the parameter note: 'If None, uses active project.' There is no statement of when this tool is preferred over proj_get_parameters, proj_get_stats, or proj_get_path, so selection relies on inference from the return-field list.

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