get_project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly lists what information will be returned, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires an open session, or any potential side effects. Given the 'get' prefix and the nature of the tool, the absence of these details is a minor gap, hence a 3.

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 well-structured: it starts with the purpose, gives a use-case justification, and follows with a concise bullet list of included information. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's simple single-parameter shape and the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It sufficiently explains what categories are covered and when to use it. It could mention prerequisites like needing an active session, but that is handled by sibling tools (start_session, list_sessions), so a 4 is appropriate.

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 input schema provides no description and 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by explicitly defining the sole parameter: 'session_id: 目标会话 ID', which adds clear meaning. While minimal, it fully covers the parameter's purpose, exceeding the schema alone.

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 a specific verb ('获取') and clearly identifies the resource ('当前 Vivado 项目的综合信息'), enumerating exact content categories (project name, part, top-level, files, IP, run status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target specific reports (e.g., get_timing_report, get_utilization_report), making it the go-to overview tool.

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 explicitly states a clear usage context: 'AI 接手陌生项目时的起点' (starting point when AI takes over an unfamiliar project) and emphasizes '一次查询完成摸底' (one query for reconnaissance). It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is strong enough to imply this is the first query to run before diving into more specific tools.

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