get_project

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only snapshot but never states that it is side-effect free, doesn't say what happens when no project is open, and doesn't mention whether the summary reflects unsaved in-memory state. For a zero-annotation tool this is a real gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a compact field list, duplicated in Japanese. Efficient for a bilingual server, though the identical repetition doubles length without adding information for an English-reading agent.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of information about behavior and return shape. The field list helps, but the absence of any statement about the no-project case, state freshness, or error behavior leaves an agent under-informed about what it will actually receive.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by naming the fields the summary contains, giving the agent a sense of the shape of the result even though no output schema exists.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Summary of the open project') and enumerates the content covered (file, saved state, key, tempos, time signatures, tracks, voice parts). This clearly distinguishes it from mutation siblings like save_project or add_track, and from get_curve/get_voicebank which the field list shows it does not cover. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead of X' routing statement, which keeps it at 4.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this before editing, to check unsaved state, or how it relates to list_notes/list_singers which surface overlapping data. Usage must be inferred from the enumerated fields alone.

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