get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It transparently lists the three pieces of information returned (path, validity, game title), which is the core behavioral output. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects, but the verb 'Get' strongly implies it, and no contradictory traits are disclosed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then efficiently specifies the exact return values. No redundant words or unnecessary detail.

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-parameter getter with no output schema, the description fully specifies the three return fields (path, validity, game title). All essential information is provided, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers everything. The description adds meaningful context about what entity is being retrieved (the current project) but does not need to explain any inputs since there are none.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('the project directory the server is currently operating on'), and explicitly enumerates the returned information: path, validity as an RPG Maker MZ project, and game title. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_project (which changes the project) and validate_project (which only checks validity).

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 description implies the tool is for retrieving the currently active project ('the server is currently operating on'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over get_game_title or set_project, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Usage context is present but not fully elaborated.

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