get_project_bible

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read, and the parenthetical lists the returned fields, which partially substitutes for the missing output schema. It says nothing about behavior when a project has no bible, whether the default project is created, or permission requirements.

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 sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, with the field list doing double duty as return-value documentation. No filler.

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 simple single-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and the field enumeration covers return content in the absence of an output schema. The undocumented 'project' parameter and the silence on missing-bible behavior leave a real gap.

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 single 'project' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and a bare default of 'default', and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no guidance on what identifier form is expected or what the default resolves to. Only the fact that it is optional keeps this above a 1.

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?

Specific verb (Get) plus a named resource (Project Bible) and an enumerated list of what it contains: art style, palette, polycount budget, target engine, autonomy mode, spend caps. That makes it clearly distinct from update_project_bible and get_budget siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus update_project_bible, get_budget, or get_game_profile, all of which overlap on project config. The agent must infer that this is the read-side of a read/write pair.

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