get_project_info

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states a read-like operation ('Get'), but does not mention whether it has side effects, requires specific permissions, or if it relies on an active project. The lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise, containing a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be slightly expanded to add value without losing efficiency.

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 simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description should provide at least some context about what information is included. The generic phrase 'project information' is insufficient for an agent to understand the return value or the tool's scope.

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 schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds no new details about parameters. However, it does confirm the tool takes no arguments. The implied meaning (no parameters needed) is already clear from 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?

The description 'Get current project information' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (current project information). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_layers' or 'get_qgis_info' by focusing on general project info, but it does not specify what kind of information is returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios, e.g., whether a project must be loaded first or how it differs from get_layers.

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