project_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but it says nothing about whether the project must already be open, what happens on a missing/unsaved project, or how errors surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical list efficiently communicates scope. It is appropriately sized, though the trailing ellipsis leaves the field set open-ended.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description communicates what section is returned and roughly what it contains. However, it omits prerequisites and any sense of return structure, so it is adequate but not complete.

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?

There is a single parameter (project_id) with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format or sourcing detail about the id beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (read) and resource (the ProjectManager section of the saved .ioc), and enumerates the fields it covers (toolchain, FW package, heap/stack, file layout, user-code guards). It does not differentiate from the many adjacent read siblings such as project_get or ioc_get, but the purpose itself is clear.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus project_get, ioc_get, or project_list. The phrase 'saved .ioc' hints that a saved project is required, but there is no explicit prerequisite, exclusion, or alternative named.

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