project_info

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the payload contents (folder, data, specs, probe command, Blender) which implies a read-only informational retrieval, but it never states side effects, permissions, or whether it mutates anything. This is partial disclosure only.

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?

It is a single tersely packed sentence with no wasted prose, which is good, but the trailing fragment 'the probe command, Blender.' is cryptic and the enumeration is not front-loaded around a clear action. Terseness here edges into under-specification.

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?

With zero params and no output schema, the description tries to compensate by listing returned content, which is the right instinct. However 'the probe command, Blender' is too opaque to substitute for a return-value description, so an agent still cannot predict the shape of the response.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No param-related gaps exist.

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 resource ('the project in use') and enumerates the kind of content it exposes (folder, data, specs, work folders, probe command, Blender), but lacks a verb and reads as a noun-phrase dump. It is distinguishable from content-oriented siblings like spec_list or rig_facts only by inference, not by any explicit claim.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many siblings (rig_facts, probe_status, spec_list). The agent must guess that this is a general project-context lookup.

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