get_project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It states the return format ('JSON string') but omits safety profiles (read-only vs mutation), authentication requirements, rate limits, or what specific project properties are included in the response.

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?

Uses a clear docstring structure with Args and Returns sections. The first sentence efficiently states the purpose. While slightly formal for a single-parameter tool, the structure is appropriate given the lack of schema descriptions, ensuring the parameter is documented.

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?

Adequate for a simple retrieval tool with one required parameter. The existence of an output schema (per context signals) reduces the need for detailed return value descriptions, though 'JSON string with project information' remains vague. Given the rich sibling ecosystem (health, metrics, listing tools), additional context on what distinguishes this 'project info' would improve completeness.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates effectively by providing semantic meaning for the 'project_id' parameter: it describes it as a 'Full project identifier' and gives a concrete example ('wordpress_site1'), clarifying the expected format beyond the schema's bare 'string' type.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific project'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it fails to differentiate from siblings like 'get_project_health' or 'get_project_metrics', leaving ambiguity about what specific 'information' this returns.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_projects' (which retrieves all projects) or 'get_project_health' (which gets specific health data). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned.

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