get_project_length

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return is an object with length in seconds, but doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific project states, or how it handles empty projects. For a getter with no annotations, this is a significant 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?

The description is extremely concise—one sentence plus a brief return note—with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose immediately.

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 parameterless getter with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what is returned (length in seconds), but lacks behavioral context such as whether the project must be open, what happens with empty projects, or how this relates to other project-level tools. It's enough to call correctly but leaves gaps in understanding edge cases.

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 zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate since there are none to describe.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get the length of the project') and clarifies the scope with '(end of last item)'. This is clear and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_project_summary, which might also return project length.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_summary or get_project_path. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage contexts without any exclusions or referrals.

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