cst_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies read-only behavior ('Get information') but does not explicitly state that no modifications are made, nor does it describe error handling (e.g., what happens if no project is open) or any side effects.

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 sentence of 16 words, directly stating the purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, avoiding any fluff.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides a reasonable list of output fields (connection mode, project path, status). However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., JSON structure) or potential error conditions. For a simple getter, this is mostly sufficient but could be slightly more comprehensive.

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 no parameters, so there is no need for the description to add meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 100% trivially, and the description appropriately omits param details.

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 information about the currently open CST project, specifying the exact pieces of info (connection mode, project path, status). This distinguishes it from siblings like cst_connection_status or cst_get_simulation_status which focus on specific aspects.

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 does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative siblngs. While it's clear that this is for general project info, it lacks indications such as 'Use this for an overview; for specific status details, use cst_get_simulation_status'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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