get_project_info

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

With no annotations, the description must convey the behavioral profile. The verb 'Gets' clearly indicates a read-only operation, implying no side effects. It also enumerates the kind of information returned, which adds transparency beyond just the name. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify anything, but for a getter this is sufficient.

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. Every phrase adds value: the verb, the resource, and the specific fields. No unnecessary words or repetition. It is as concise as possible while remaining informative.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description adequately scopes what is included (name, path, settings, status). It does not have an output schema, so the description itself must communicate the return value shape. The use of 'comprehensive' is somewhat vague and there is no mention of the response structure, but the listed categories give a reasonable baseline. Given the presence of a sibling 'get_full_project_overview', this could be more precise.

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 and the schema is 100% covered by an empty properties object. The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the listed info categories provide context for what will be returned, which is valuable given the lack of an output schema.

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 gets comprehensive information about the current project and lists specific fields (name, path, settings, status). However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_full_project_overview', which likely overlaps in scope, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'current project' implies the tool is used when project-level information is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like 'get_sequence_settings' or 'get_full_project_overview'. No when-not or exclusions are provided.

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