Project info

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond that by disclosing the returned discovery fields (including write mode, which signals whether later mutations are permitted) and by establishing that this is the prerequisite call before other operations.

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?

One compact sentence plus a two-word imperative, with the highest-value directive ('Call this first') front-loaded at the end of a short block. There is no filler, though the field list reads as telegraphic fragments rather than prose.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so. It omits one relevant caveat for a zero-parameter tool: whether it fails or returns empty when no project is selected, given that select_project exists as a sibling.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. This is the baseline case where no parameter explanation is required.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns: project root, detected engine/editor version, write mode, available data files, and plugin count. That is specific enough to separate it from read tools like get_map_summary or get_plugin_commands, though it is a noun-phrase field list rather than a verb-plus-resource statement.

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?

'Call this first' gives a clear, actionable ordering directive that tells the agent when to reach for this tool relative to all siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating exclusions, so it lands below the explicit when/when-not tier.

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