proj_get_path

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only getter and lists the return keys, but says nothing about what happens when no project or file is focused (error vs. empty), or whether the path is absolute/relative — the most likely failure mode for this call.

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?

Two short lines, with the core purpose front-loaded. The 'Returns' block partially duplicates the output schema, which is mild waste, but it is not long enough to be a structural problem.

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 zero-argument getter with an output schema, the description covers purpose and output shape adequately. The remaining gap is the undefined behavior when no file is focused, which matters because the tool's entire premise depends on that state existing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for on the input side.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full path of the currently focused project file.' An agent immediately knows what is retrieved. However, it never distinguishes itself from the closely-named sibling proj_get_focused, which could plausibly return the same or overlapping information.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (must a project be open? must a file be focused?), and no mention of alternatives such as proj_get_focused or proj_list_open. The agent must infer the trigger condition entirely.

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