Get project state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly says 'Return', implying a non-destructive read operation, and lists the exact output fields. It does not explicitly state it has no side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied. It also does not contradict any annotations (there are none). This is transparent enough for a read-only getter, but a 5 would require an explicit statement that it does not modify the project.

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 a single sentence that is both concise and information-dense. It lists all returned fields and immediately follows with a clear usage hint. Every word earns its place, and the essential 'return' and usage guidance are front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: what it returns and when to use it. There is no missing information about parameters, prerequisites, or side effects. The tool is fully self-contained.

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, so the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related information because there are none to describe. This 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('current project's state'), enumerating the exact data returned (tempo, length, transport play state, track list with specific fields). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling getters like reaper_get_fx_params, which target a different resource. It is not a tautology and provides a concrete purpose.

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 gives an explicit usage context: 'Use this to orient before making changes.' This tells the agent when to invoke it (before modifications), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Since there are other getters in the sibling set (e.g., reaper_get_fx_params), the guidance could be stronger, but the clear 'before making changes' cue is sufficient for a 4.

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