Project Info

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

With no annotations, the description does most of the work. The verb 'Summarise' strongly implies a read-only operation and the tool's purpose is transparent enough. However, it does not explicitly state that no changes are made to the project or describe how the default active project resolution behaves beyond what the schema already says.

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 with no excess verbiage. The core action and the three content areas are all front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to scan and understand.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema available, this description is largely complete. The only slight gap is that 'publish target' and 'compatibility' could be more explicit about what exact information is returned, but that is minor.

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 input schema describes the single 'path' parameter fully, including its nullability and default of the active project (100% schema description coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Summarise') and a specific resource ('a project'), then names the three facets covered: sprites, publish target, and compatibility. This is clear and functional, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similarly named siblings like sb3_project_info or social_get_project_info.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The existence of similarly named siblings such as sb3_project_info and social_get_project_info makes the omission noticeable; an agent must infer that 'summary' is the intended use case.

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