ap_project_get_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the substance of what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or what happens if no project is open. The get_info name partially mitigates this, but the description itself adds limited behavioral detail beyond the field list.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately establishes the scope ('Project-level state') followed by a compact list of returned fields. Every word adds information and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 getter with no output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool returns by naming the relevant project state fields. It does not mention error conditions or output formatting, but these are minor for such a simple read-only information tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameter descriptions needed, and the description does not omit or obscure any parameter-related meaning.

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 identifies the tool as returning project-level state and enumerates the specific information included: file path, base path, format version, BGRA flag, environment map settings, and camera FOV. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like ap_get_app_info and ap_get_context by its explicit project scope, though it relies on the tool name for the verb.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ap_get_app_info, ap_get_context, or ap_get_config. There are no explicit conditions, preconditions, or exclusion statements, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and scope.

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