ugs_get_project_info

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'Get' implying read-only, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, whether it mutates state, or any other constraints like rate limits or required permissions. The 'quick economy check' suggests a query but lacks detail.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: first states the purpose, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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?

The description covers the tool's basic purpose and usage timing, but lacks detail on return values or structure (no output schema provided). For a simple status check, it is minimally adequate but could be improved by describing what exact information is returned.

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 schema description coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'Unity project UGS status, environment, and quick economy check'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by implying it's a preliminary check, though it doesn't explicitly compare to similar tools like 'super_health_check'.

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 instruction 'Run this first if UGS env is set' provides explicit when-to-use guidance, positioning it as an initial step. It does not list when-not-to-use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools and the phrase 'first' adequately conveys priority.

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