project_get_database

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by revealing the return shape (dict with DbType, DbName, IpAddress) and the conditional behavior of IpAddress appearing only for remote databases. This goes beyond the annotation, providing useful contextual detail. No contradictions.

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, using two short sentences. The main action is front-loaded, and the return format is separated clearly with a 'Returns:' line. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or unnecessary detail.

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 low complexity (no parameters, read-only, simple output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose and return shape. A minor gap is the lack of mention of what happens when no project is open, but this is a simple getter and the output schema already documents the return type, so the description does not need to explain more.

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 are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. The rubric sets a baseline of 4 for parameterless tools. The description appropriately does not attempt to explain parameters, since there are none.

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 action ('Return info') and the specific resource ('current project database'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'project_get_database_list' by explicitly scoping to the current database, and also specifies the return format, making the purpose 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'project_get_database_list'. The word 'current' implies a prerequisite (an open project), but this is not stated, and there is no discussion of exclusions or alternative scenarios. The description focuses purely on what it does, not when to use it.

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