project_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Return' reasonably implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and listing returned fields adds transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the project must be open, whether empty states are possible, or any other operational behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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 concise sentence with the key output fields up front. It loses a point for the slightly awkward repetition of 'timeline' and 'timeline count,' which could confuse an agent reading quickly.

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 is simple, has no parameters, and an output schema exists, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. The missing usage guidance and the timeline phrasing ambiguity keep it from being fully complete, but there is no major missing information for actually invoking the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters und schema coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are essentially not applicable. The description adds value by clarifying what information is returned, which is the closest analog to parameter meaning for a no-argument query.

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 ('Return') and names the resource ('current project') plus a concrete list of fields. It is clear what the tool does, though the term 'timeline' alongside 'timeline count' is slightly ambiguous, and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like timeline_overview or resolve_status.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given siblings like timeline_overview, list_timelines, and project_health, an agent would benefit from knowing that project_info is the broad overview of the current project and that timeline-specific details belong elsewhere. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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