project_metadata

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only lists returned field names. It does not state that the call is read-only, what the return structure looks like, or whether any side effects or errors are possible.

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, front-loaded sentence that uses every word to convey the field list. No filler or repetition exists.

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?

The field list gives the agent a reasonable idea of return content, and the lack of parameters makes invocation trivial. However, there is no output schema, so ambiguous names like 'selected' and the overall return shape/types are left unexplained, and there is no guidance on how this snapshot relates to other project inspection tools.

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description reinforces what the agent can expect from the call by enumerating the snapshot fields, which is the only semantic content needed for a parameterless invocation.

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 identifies a singular resource—a project snapshot—and enumerates the fields it contains (tempo, signature, tracks, channels, patterns, selected, title, path), making the tool's purpose clear despite lacking an explicit verb like 'get' or 'read'. It does not name or contrast sibling tools such as project_version or project_dump_score_log, so differentiation rests on the field list alone.

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?

There is no statement about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling project_* and read-only inspection tools. No alternatives, exclusions, or triggering context are mentioned.

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