get_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool returns project info and mentions 'Tapir enriches', which seems to indicate some added functionality or dependency. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, required permissions, or limitations. The mention of 'geolocation presence (Tapir enriches)' is vague and could confuse agents.

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 concise, a single sentence that lists key contents. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, the parenthetical 'Tapir enriches' adds ambiguity and could be removed or clarified, but overall it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which is not shown here), the description may not need to detail return values. However, it does not mention the port parameter or any usage notes. The tool seems relatively simple (no required params), but the lack of parameter explanation and the vague 'Tapir enriches' leaves room for improvement. It is borderline adequate for a simple info query.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter 'port' is not explained in the description. The description does not mention the port parameter at all, leaving the agent unsure why it is needed or how to set it. With 0% coverage and only one parameter, the description should have explained its role, but it does not.

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 tool's purpose: retrieving project information such as Archicad version, project name, stories, hotlinks, and geolocation presence. It uses specific nouns related to the domain. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_model_summary, which might cover similar ground, so it lacks some differentiation.

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 description implies a read-only informational query, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. Given the context of sibling tools, it is likely used for project-level metadata, but the description does not articulate when to choose this over get_model_summary or other tools.

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