get_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly communicates a read-only information retrieval operation via 'Get information', and it discloses what data will be returned. It does not discuss error behavior (e.g., when no project is open) or explicitly state 'does not modify anything', but for a simple getter the behavior is largely transparent.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource before listing the specific outputs. Every part of the sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or 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 zero-parameter, read-only project-info tool, the description is complete: it identifies the target context ('currently open' project) and names the three categories of returned information. An output schema exists, so detailed return shapes are handled there, and no additional prerequisites, side effects, or complex behavior need explanation.

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 zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly omits parameter details; the schema already fully covers this dimension at 100% 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?

The description states a specific action ('Get information') and a specific resource ('the currently open ArcGIS Pro project'), and explicitly enumerates the returned data: file path, geodatabase, and list of maps. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_workspace, get_active_map_name, and list_layers, which each target narrower resources.

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 makes the usage context clear: call this when you need project-level information about the currently open ArcGIS Pro project, including its path, geodatabase, or maps. It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the phrase 'currently open ArcGIS Pro project' and the enumerated outputs imply the correct scope without confusion.

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