get_project_config

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

No annotations provided; description only says 'Get', implying read-only but fails to disclose potential side effects, error cases (e.g., invalid path), authorization needs, or whether it returns stale data. The description carries the burden but does not address behavioral traits.

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?

Extremely concise with two sentences and no redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the action, but could benefit from a brief note on output format or common usage.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 param, output schema exists), the description is somewhat adequate. However, it lacks notes on error handling (e.g., if path is invalid), permissions, or relation to sibling tools like init_project. More context would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds meaningful context: 'Absolute path to the project directory.' This clarifies the parameter's nature beyond the schema's string type. However, it could detail formatting (e.g., trailing slash) or validation rules.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('project configuration'), making the purpose unambiguous. The tool name itself is specific, but no explicit differentiation from siblings like get_generate_prompt, though context implies distinct resources.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getting project prompts or profiles. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or when not to use it.

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