Project Editing Guide

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that this tool is a prerequisite read, that it covers hard limits, and that projects must be written as goboscript source and compiled rather than edited as raw project.json. Since the tool has no parameters and is purely a guide, additional side-effect disclosure is unnecessary.

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?

Three short sentences with the critical usage instruction front-loaded in the first sentence. Each sentence adds distinct information: the precondition, the covered content, and the authoring workflow.

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 documentation tool, the description provides everything an agent needs: when to invoke it, what it covers, and the expected project-authoring model. The presence of an output schema covers return-value details, so no additional context is missing.

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 parameter semantics are largely moot and the baseline of 4 applies. The empty schema with additionalProperties false leaves nothing undocumented.

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 states an explicit action ('Read this') and a precise resource: guidance for creating or editing Scratch projects, covering hard limits and goboscript. This clearly distinguishes it from action-oriented sibling tools like project_new or project_build, positioning it as a prerequisite guide rather than an operation.

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 opening sentence is an explicit condition: read before creating or editing any Scratch project. It also clarifies the supported workflow—goboscript .gs source, not raw project.json—which prevents the agent from using other tools to edit raw JSON. No alternative tool is named, but the when-to-use instruction is unambiguous.

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