pr_getProjectState

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context (that sequences carry an 'active' flag and items include media paths), but says nothing about output size, truncation, or what maxItems does on large projects.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the app name and the returned fields, followed by a short imperative. Efficient, though the parenthetical list is packed enough to read as slightly telescoped.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so at a high level (name/path, sequences, items, media paths). It omits the undocumented maxItems behavior and any note on payload scale, leaving a real gap for a whole-project state dump.

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 is exactly one optional parameter, maxItems, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent cannot tell whether it caps items, sequences, or recursion depth, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

Names the resource (project state) and enumerates what it returns: project name/path, sequences with name/id/active, and all project items including bins, clips and media paths. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like pr_getSequenceState and pr_getClipProperties, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 clause "Call before referencing items" gives a concrete ordering rule: this is the discovery call that yields the IDs other tools consume. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when a narrower getter is preferable, so it sits just below the top band.

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