Describe the project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining that the default response is a summary and that include adds extra sections, although it does not discuss pagination or how limit affects the returned sections.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and reported sections, followed by the include/default behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted wording.

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, but the description still conveys the available content categories and the difference between summary-only and include-section responses. It does not explain output formatting or pagination, but the read-only annotations and fully documented schema cover the remaining critical context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the include parameter's default-summary behavior but adds no syntax, formatting, or limit-interaction details beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: report the structure of the open project, enumerating canvas, frame rate, keyframes, figure definitions and instances, layers, backgrounds, effects, movieclips, and audio. The project-level scope implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like figure_list and layer_list, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Explains that the include list selects extra sections and that omitting it returns only the summary, which is clear usage guidance for the main parameter. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of figure_list or layer_list, nor does it mention the project_open prerequisite, though the schema's project parameter does.

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