get_project_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds value by detailing the exact return structure, including nested track objects, markers, and regions. It does not contradict annotations, but it also does not disclose any potential limitations (e.g., behavior with no open project). Given the simple read-only nature, the added return schema is sufficient 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a clear 'Returns:' section listing the object fields. Every line provides necessary information about the return structure. There is no fluff; it earns its length.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully documents the return object with nested fields, types, and examples (e.g., volume_db, pan ranges). It covers all relevant project aspects: tracks, master, markers, regions, and timing. Nothing an agent needs to understand the tool's output is missing.

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 has zero parameters and no properties in the input schema, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get a comprehensive summary of the current REAPER project.' It explicitly states the tool returns everything needed to understand project state for mixing/production advice, distinguishing it from more specific siblings like get_project_name or get_tempo. The scope and intent are unambiguous.

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 usage as a one-shot overview for production advice, but it does not explicitly mention when to use dedicated tools for specific details. While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit guidance on exclusions or alternatives beyond the implicit one-stop-shop nature. A stronger statement like 'for individual fields use get_project_name etc.' would make it a 5.

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