get_project_info

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the operation is a 'get' (implying read-only) and lists output fields, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. This leaves some gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the purpose and the specific data points returned. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the return values (name, ID, created date, available features), which is essential. It does not specify the data structure or types, but for a simple project-info getter, this is largely sufficient. The description is complete enough for the low complexity of 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 0 parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description does not attempt to document parameters, which is unnecessary. With no parameters, a baseline of 4 is given, and the description adds value by clarifying what the tool returns.

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 ('Get') and resource ('PostHog project'), and explicitly lists the returned fields (name, ID, created date, available features). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target events, persons, dashboards, or feature flags.

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 when to use it: when you need project-level information. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks direct 'use this when' guidance, so a score of 4 is appropriate.

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