project_reference

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 does describe what the tool returns (profile, tracks, chains) and the two modes, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it has any side effects, requires permissions, or has performance implications. Since it appears to be a query tool, the lack of explicit read-only declaration is a minor gap, but the description adds some value by detailing the output content.

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 sentence but packs in the two distinct behaviors and the details of the output. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('What finished projects are built like'), but the opening phrase is a bit verbose and could be streamlined to 'Returns the build profile of finished projects'. No extra fluff is present.

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 only one optional parameter and an output schema (which presumably documents the return structure), the description is fairly complete. It explains both modes and the key aspects of the output (what sits on kicks, basses, buses, master, tempo, length; tracks and chains). It does not mention any prerequisites (e.g., projects must be indexed) or limitations, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does this effectively by explaining that the optional 'name' parameter, when null/absent, returns the global profile, and when set, returns that project's tracks and chains. This adds clear semantic meaning beyond the bare schema definition, though it does not specify the exact format or source of the name (e.g., project ID vs. title).

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 what the tool does: it returns a profile of finished projects, either across all indexed .als files (when no name is given) or for a specific project (when a name is given). The verb is implicit but the resource and the two distinct modes are specified, which distinguishes it from siblings like find_references. However, the phrasing 'What finished projects are built like' is indirect and could be more explicit about the action (e.g., 'get project profile').

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 explains the conditional behavior based on the name parameter but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, such as 'use find_references to locate projects first' or 'this is for finished projects only'. The context of when this tool is appropriate is only implied through the description of its output, not stated explicitly.

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