project_get_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the safety burden. 'Get' implies a non-mutating read operation and the parenthetical lists the returned fields, but the description does not state behavior around missing or unopened projects, errors, or side effects. This is acceptable but not richly transparent.

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 with no wasted words. It states the action, the target, and the key output dimensions efficiently.

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, an output schema available, and a simple read-only operation, the description covers all invocation-relevant information. The phrase 'current project's' provides enough disambiguation among the project_* siblings.

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 are zero parameters, so parameter clarification is unnecessary; the baseline for 0 params is 4. The parenthetical adds useful context about the output content even though no parameter semantics are needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current project's video profile'), and clarifies what the profile includes with 'resolution, FPS, aspect ratio.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like project_set_profile and project_list_profiles.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'current project's video profile' — an agent can infer it is for reading the active project's profile rather than listing or setting profiles. However, no explicit alternatives, when-to-use, or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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