project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Print' suggests a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether it reads from the file system, what the output format is, whether it has any side effects, or what error conditions may occur. The existence of an output schema is not reflected in the description, leaving the agent without a clear understanding of what to expect on success.

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 that immediately identifies the tool's action and target. It contains no filler, is front-loaded with the purpose, and does not repeat information already available in the schema or tool name. Every word contributes to the tool's understanding.

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 one-parameter tool with a structured output schema, the description is nearly adequate—it states what the tool produces and its input domain. However, it lacks clarification on the parameter's exact form (path vs. content) and offers no guidance against sibling tools like inspect_source. These gaps make the description minimally complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameter's meaning. It clarifies that 'project_or_json' refers to a '.spine project or skeleton .json', which adds some semantic value beyond the bare schema. However, it does not specify whether the parameter accepts a file path, file contents, or a URL, so the agent still has to guess the exact expected input format.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Print bones/slots/animations' identifies the exact output content, and it specifies the input scoping to '.spine project or skeleton .json'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like pack_atlas or export_project, though it does not explicitly name an alternative for comparison.

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 the tool is used for inspecting the structural components of a Spine project or skeleton JSON, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like inspect_source or preview. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions, so usage context is left entirely to the agent's inference.

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