typst_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what is returned (metadata, permissions, compiler version, file tree), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits—details an agent might need for a project access tool.

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 efficiently lists the key returned information. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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 read tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a clear inventory of what the agent will receive. It is nearly complete, though it could mention authentication or read-only behavior to fully cover the lack of annotations.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about the 'projectId' parameter beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 ('Get') and enumerates the resource contents: detailed metadata, access permissions, pinned compiler version, and full file tree. It clearly distinguishes this tool from list_projects and list_files by scoping to a single project's full details. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate further, keeping it at a 4.

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 usage is implied: an agent would infer this is for inspecting a project's details. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus list_projects or list_files, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough to be minimally viable but lacks direct guidance.

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