get_project_name

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read operation, and the description's 'Get' aligns with that. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotation, but for a zero-parameter read-only getter there is little additional behavior to disclose. No contradiction exists.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a trivial zero-parameter getter and front-loads the essential information 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 simple read-only tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, 'Get the project name.' is sufficiently complete. The annotation covers the safety profile, and the description unambiguously states the operation and resource.

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?

There are no parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description does not need to explain any parameter meaning. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no information is missing.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the project name.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_project_path, get_project_length, and get_project_summary by naming the project name as the target resource. Even with zero parameters, an agent knows exactly what this tool returns.

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 intended use is implied: call when you need the project name. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it differs from related project getters like get_project_path or get_project_summary. The context is clear but alternatives are not discussed.

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