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 explicitly says 'Read' and lists the returned configuration fields (project type, frontend type, deployment target, components), making it clear this is a non-mutating inspection tool. However, it does not mention error behavior or edge cases (e.g., if the project does not exist), so it is transparent but not exhaustive.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key verb and resource. It is concise, contains no redundant information, and every part contributes to understanding the tool's 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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and implies the prerequisite that the project must already exist. It does not elaborate on failure modes, but these are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the availability of an output schema.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter, project_dir, with a clear description ('Absolute path to the project root to inspect'). The tool description does not add anything beyond the schema for the parameter itself; it focuses on return values, which are already covered by the output schema. Thus, the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Read an existing scaffolded project and return its configuration'. It is specific with a verb ('Read') and resource ('scaffolded project'), and it distinguishes from siblings like create_project, configure_project, and add_component by establishing a read-only inspection role.

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 implies usage for reading an existing project's configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. It says 'existing scaffolded project', which hints at a prerequisite, but no direct guidance or mention of sibling tools is given.

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