project_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' phrase is redundant with structured data. Beyond that, the description adds useful behavioral context: it enumerates the key result fields (data.configured, data.missingFiles, resource and stack counts) and frames the call as a cheap first probe. It stops short of describing error behavior for non-project folders.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the returned data, followed by the alternative-tool routing and then the optional parameter hint. No filler or restated title; each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value meaning, and it does name the top-level fields an agent will receive plus the overall purpose. It does not detail the shape of the resource/stack counts or what an unconfigured project response looks like, a minor remaining gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as an absolute path. The description still adds conditional meaning not in the schema: 'Set projectPath when the MCP server is not running from the project root', telling the agent when the parameter is actually needed.

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 names a concrete verb-plus-resource: it reports the project root, whether generated master files exist (data.configured, data.missingFiles), and resource and stack counts. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from config_verify and status, so an agent can identify it without opening a schema.

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?

It states a clear selection rule: 'a quick first call to learn whether a folder is a configured Flisk project', and it names the alternatives with their conditions ('Use `config_verify` to check that the generated files match, and `status` for the running stack'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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