get_project_path

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description 'Get the project path' aligns with that. The description adds little beyond the annotation—no details on path format (absolute vs relative) or whether it returns the full file path—but does not contradict anything. For a trivial getter with annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that directly states the operation with zero filler words. It is perfectly compact and immediately informative.

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 no-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides the essential information—what the tool returns. Minor ambiguity about the exact nature of the path (file path vs directory) could be clarified, but this is not critical for an agent making the call correctly. Overall, it is complete enough.

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 no parameters, so the input schema is fully self-documenting (100% coverage). The description logically does not need to elaborate on parameters; the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is justified here.

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 clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (project path), which is a specific, unambiguous artifact. It naturally distinguishes from siblings like get_project_name or get_project_summary, as it targets the path rather than other project attributes.

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 context is clear: an agent would call this when it needs the filesystem path of the current project. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative routing to other siblings, but the purpose is self-evident for a simple getter, so a minor deduction only.

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