project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description shoulders the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does describe the two return modes (list vs. detail) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly confirm safety, mention error handling (e.g., what happens if the name does not exist), or note any side effects or authentication requirements. The description adds some behavioral detail but is not comprehensive for an unannotated tool.

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 highly concise, front-loading the core purpose and then clearly delineating the two modes before listing the argument. Every sentence contributes value, with no filler. The structure is optimal for quick agent scanning.

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 low complexity (single optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description covers the essential calling context: what the tool does and how the parameter alters the result. It could go further by noting expected error behavior or clarifying what 'active projects' means, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only defines an optional 'name' field with a default null and anyOf string/null, providing no semantic meaning. The description compensates by explaining that omitting the name returns a list of all projects, while including it returns detailed info for one named project. This adds significant behavioral meaning beyond the raw schema, effectively covering the parameter's semantics despite 0% schema coverage.

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 the tool retrieves project information from a registry, with two explicit modes: listing all active projects (with stacks) when no name is given, and returning detailed info for a specific project when a name is provided. This is a specific verb-resource pairing. However, it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like source_list or project_code_search, which could overlap in purpose or context.

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 when to omit the name (to get a full list) versus when to provide it (to get a single project's details), which is clear self-usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent when to choose this tool over siblings, nor does it mention any exclusion criteria or alternatives. The guidance is contextually clear but lacks cross-tool comparison.

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