Project info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the flagged cost of includeTemplates ('slower') and the scope of data returned. It does not cover error behavior or behavior when no project is open, hence not a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a dense but useful field inventory, then two actionable sentences on the optional parameter and call ordering. The field enumeration is long and slightly list-like, but every entry helps the agent know what it will receive in the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema and a single well-documented parameter, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (file, teamwork, application, folders, story, window/database), which is exactly what an agent needs. It omits failure modes (e.g., no open project) but is otherwise sufficient for a read-only info tool.

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% and the schema already documents includeTemplates including its cost ('slower'), so the baseline is 3. The description only adds 'for new_project' as the motivation, which is a marginal gain over the schema's own text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns facts about the open project and Archicad') and enumerates the returned categories (file, teamwork, application, folders, story). This is far more concrete than a tautology. However, it never differentiates itself from the similarly named sibling get_project_info_fields, which an agent could plausibly confuse with this tool.

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?

Gives an explicit operational directive: 'Call this before save/open/new/close operations,' tying the tool's usage to concrete siblings. It also explains the non-default includeTemplates path is 'for new_project.' No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion is stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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