project_get_info

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Return' clearly signals a read-only operation with no mutation, and the metadata categories set expectations for the response. It could mention prerequisites like an open project, but for a no-argument getter this is adequate.

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 sentence with the verb and object front-loaded, followed by a compact list of returned fields. Every word carries information and there is no boilerplate.

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 and an output schema present, the description only needs to say what the tool returns, which it does. Minor ambiguity about whether 'project' means the current active project is easily resolved from the sibling set, so nothing critical 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, so no parameter documentation is required in the description. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the schema or description to explain.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('project metadata') and enumerates concrete outputs: FPS, resolution, track layout, bin clip count. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling getters like project_get_profile or timeline_get_info, though the combined field list implies a project-wide overview.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as project_get_profile, timeline_get_info, or bin_list_clips. The intended use is implied by 'project metadata' but there are no exclusions or alternative routing.

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