get_project_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'returns metadata,' implying a read-only operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly disclose non-destructive behavior, error handling on invalid paths, or any permissions required. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the function name.

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 direct sentence followed by an Args block with one parameter. No filler; front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The tool has one parameter, an output schema exists (so return values are documented), and the description clarifies the parameter's semantics. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly, though it omits edge-case behavior (invalid paths) which might be covered by the output schema.

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 0%, and the description compensates by specifying that project_path is 'Absolute path to the Godot project directory,' adding meaning the schema lacks (absolute required, points to directory). It does not elaborate on path validation or file requirements, but it gives the key semantic.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('metadata about a Godot project'), enumerating the kind of metadata (name, structure, Godot version). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_godot_version (which likely returns the editor version) and list_projects (which likely returns paths).

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is given. The intended usage is implied by the name and description, but the description does not contrast with siblings like list_projects or get_godot_version, nor does it state any conditions under which another tool should be chosen.

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