proj_get_parameters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly conveys the read-only nature ('Get'), explains the default behavior when project_path is None (uses active project), and states the return shape. It does not disclose permission requirements or error behavior, but the essential behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the parameter and return values. The Args/Returns boilerplate is slightly verbose but each line adds information; nothing 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 return values need not be detailed beyond the summary given. With one optional parameter fully explained and a clear read-only operation, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only sibling comparison is missing.

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 must compensate. It does: project_path is described as optional, and the crucial semantic that None falls back to the active project is stated explicitly, which the bare schema does not convey.

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 all parameters at the project level. Clear what it returns. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like proj_set_parameter, proj_push_parameters, or proj_get_options, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: a read of project-level parameters. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer proj_get_options or how this relates to proj_set_parameter/proj_push_parameters, though the surrounding siblings suggest the intent.

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