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 clearly discloses that the tool is read-only and local, adding context beyond the schema. However, it does not describe behavior on missing project IDs or potential errors, which would enhance transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and include necessary behavioral detail. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It states the tool's purpose, the specific details shown, and the local-source constraint. It could briefly note the return format or error handling, but the current content is sufficient for basic usage.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema by detailing the type of information returned (REST URL, keys, site URL, deployment info) and the local keystore source, justifying a higher score.

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 uses specific verbs and identifies the resource clearly: 'Show local project details — REST URL, keys, site URL, and deployment info.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing that it reads from the local keystore only, differentiating it from server-side project retrieval tools.

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 implies that this tool is for local-only information ('Reads from local keystore only'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_get or project_keys. There is no direct naming of alternatives or conditions for use.

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