get_project_length

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by clarifying that the length is based on the end of the last item and that the return value is an object with the length expressed in seconds, which is not available elsewhere.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, and the return format/unit is provided in a compact follow-up.

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 read-only getter, this description is complete: it defines what the tool returns, the unit, and the precise interpretation of 'project length'. No output schema exists, but the description adequately communicates the essential return contract.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information to compensate for. The description appropriately focuses on return semantics instead.

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 and resource: "Get the length of the project", and clarifies the definition as "end of last item". This clearly distinguishes it from other read-only project tools like get_project_summary or get_project_name.

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 when to use this tool: any time the agent needs the project length in seconds. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use get_project_summary or get_play_position instead.

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