get_project_root

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the context of reading from 'infrastructure table', but no further behavioral details (e.g., potential empty result, performance characteristics). This adds some value beyond annotations but not significantly.

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?

Single sentence, clear and to the point. No unnecessary words, effectively conveys the tool's purpose.

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 no parameters, annotations providing safety profile, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could optionally mention the return type (e.g., a string), but the current level is adequate for a simple getter.

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 no parameters, so baseline is 4. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description does not add any parameter-specific information, which is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Get project root directory from infrastructure table', specifying the action, resource, and data source. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'update_project_root' (write) and 'get_source_directory' (different field).

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?

Description implies usage when the project root is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_source_directory' or 'get_project'. No exclusionary criteria are given.

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