get_project_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the operation is read-only (implied by "Get" but never stated), not what happens if no project is loaded, and not the return shape. A one-line getter has a low behavioral burden, but the description adds essentially zero context.

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 short sentence with no padding and the key information front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though at this length there is nothing to structure.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the only thing an agent still needs is what comes back (a name string, possibly empty when no project is open). That is left unstated, so the definition is minimally viable rather than complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Baseline of 4 applies with no compensating gap to fill.

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?

"Get the project name" states a verb and a resource, so the intent is unambiguous, but it is close to a restatement of the tool name and offers no differentiation from closely related siblings such as get_project_path, get_project_summary, or get_project_length. An agent can infer the purpose but gets no help selecting among the project-level getters.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the neighboring project getters, and no preconditions (e.g. a project being open). It is implied usage only, with no alternatives named.

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