get_project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get information' implying a read operation, but lacks details about side effects, permissions, or what the response contains. Critical behavioral traits are missing.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, its brevity comes at the cost of completeness; it is not optimally sized because it omits important details about the return value.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should fully explain what information is returned. It fails to do so, leaving the agent to guess the nature of the output. For a simple tool, this is a significant gap.

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 and 100% schema description coverage (trivially). Following the baseline rule for 0 params, the description adds no param information, which is acceptable. However, it could clarify what 'current project' means (e.g., active document in the application).

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 states the tool retrieves information about the current project, distinguishing it from composition-specific tools like get_composition_info. However, 'information' is vague; specifying what data is returned would elevate clarity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_composition_info or get_comp_report. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.

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