Describe the current project in plain language

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it returns a compact summary (not full JSON), includes specific content like render-time warnings and paint order, and notes performance characteristics ('Much cheaper to read'). No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence stating purpose and content, the second providing comparison and use case. Every clause adds value, no redundancy, and it is front-loaded with the core function.

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 no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool returns, what it includes, when to use it, and how it compares to a sibling. The output is a human-readable summary, so a detailed return schema is not necessary, and the description covers all important contextual aspects.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., project_id optional, omit for local project). It neither clarifies nor obscures parameter usage, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('a compact, human-readable summary of the current project'), and enumerates exactly what the summary includes (dimensions, fps, duration, element breakdown, per-track timeline, render-time warnings). It also distinguishes from sibling tool get_project by explicitly contrasting with 'get_project's full JSON', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Much cheaper to read than get_project's full JSON; use it to orient yourself or sanity-check structure without dumping the whole source.' It names the alternative (get_project) and explains the trade-off, which is clear usage guidance beyond a simple 'use this to get a summary.'

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