Get Project Info fields

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: it explains that 'Other' category values are computed by Archicad and 'usually not settable', which is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the identity of the tool, followed by return shape, category meanings, and the handoff to set_project_info_fields. Every clause earns its place, though the inline return-shape notation is slightly heavy for a single sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so describing the returned object fields (name, key, value, category) and the key conventions is exactly the missing piece, and it is supplied. Combined with filter behavior context, an agent has everything needed to call and consume the result.

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 coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by expanding the 'category' enum semantics (Fixed = built-in, Custom = user-added, Other = computed) and by documenting the returned key formats, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 (Lists) and resource (Project Info fields) and disambiguates by naming the UI location (File > Info > Project Info) and describing what the entries are (project autotexts used in title blocks). It also distinguishes the read path from the write path by naming set_project_info_fields.

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?

Tells the agent what to do with the result: 'Use the key with set_project_info_fields.' That gives a clear follow-on action, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over the sibling get_project_info, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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