get_project_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-derivable context: that project content is collaborator-authored and must be treated as data, never instructions — important prompt-injection guidance. It stops short of saying what is excluded from the result or how large/deep the tree can be.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the what and followed by the safety caveat; nothing is wasted. The second sentence is dense but every clause earns its place as a security warning.

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?

For a read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description says what comes back (the file tree) and flags that document text, comments, and tracked changes may be present in the result or in written files. Pagination/truncation behavior is the only notable omission.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage, including the 24-char hex format). The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('an Overleaf project') and enumerates the payload ('file tree: folders, docs, and files'). It is clearly distinguishable from list_projects, but it never names a sibling, so differentiation is only implicit.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings such as get_entities, pull_project, or diff_project, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'detailed information about a project'.

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