get_project_info

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the safety profile; it implies a read-only snapshot by describing returned fields, but never states that nothing is mutated, nor what happens when no project is open (error vs. null). The disclosure of the specific returned values is useful behavior-adjacent context, but permission/error behavior is absent.

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?

One sentence, resource named up front, returned fields relegated to a parenthetical list. No wasted words and nothing important is buried.

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?

There is no output schema, so the parenthetical field enumeration is exactly the right compensation and covers what the agent will get back. Missing only edge-case behavior (no project open) and the precise shape/typing of 'sequences count' vs 'items count', which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain; the schema is an empty object and the description correctly adds nothing about arguments. Baseline 4 applies for a 0-param tool.

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?

Specific verb ('Get information') plus resource ('currently open Premiere Pro project'), and it enumerates the exact fields returned (name, path, sequences count, items count, scratch disk paths). That field list implicitly separates it from sibling readers like get_project_items or get_sequences, though it never names them.

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 only implied: 'currently open project' signals a precondition that a project must be open, and the field list hints at metadata-summary use cases. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_project_items, get_sequences, or get_active_sequence, and no exclusions.

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