Get project info

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses what the summary includes and that raw=true changes output, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications, permissions needed, or error behavior. For a likely read operation, this is a reasonable start but incomplete.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the raw parameter behavior. No wasted words.

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?

Tool is relatively simple (2 params, no output schema). Description covers the summary content and the raw option, but lacks usage context and behavioral details like read-only nature. For a project info retrieval tool, it's adequate but not fully complete without annotations or usage guidelines.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described in the schema (raw and project). The description adds that raw=true gives full persistence JSON, slightly beyond the schema's 'Dump the full persistence JSON instead of the summary'. For project, no additional context on path format beyond schema's note. Baseline 3 appropriate when schema is high coverage.

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?

Clearly states it summarizes a project, enumerating the specific contents (tempo, tracks, clips with positions/durations and audio files). Distinguishes from siblings like create_project or analyze, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. Verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 when not to use guidance. It suggests reading project info, but doesn't say alternatives like analyze or which situations warrant this tool. The mention of raw=true gives some usage hint but lacks broader context.

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