eda_dmt_project_get_current_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses the behavioral nuance of selecting the project based on the last-focused document, and clearly states the return type (Promise<IDMT_ProjectItem | undefined>) and that undefined indicates failure. It does not mention side effects, but as a getter this is likely safe. The description provides useful behavioral context beyond the raw tool name.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful remark and return semantics. The code signature snippet adds specificity, and there is no redundant fluff. It could be slightly more readable without the code line, but it remains efficient.

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 getter, the description covers what it does, how 'current' is determined, and what a failure looks like. It lacks detail on the IDMT_ProjectItem structure and any prerequisites beyond an open focused document, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity. With no output schema or annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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 full descriptions for both parameters ('args' and 'windowId'), and the description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not explain how windowId affects the 'current' behavior, but the schema covers its basic usage.

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 it retrieves detailed properties of the current project, with a specific verb and resource. The remarks further clarify which project is 'current' (associated with the last-focused schematic/PCB/panel), which helps distinguish it from siblings that fetch project info by explicit ID. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like eda_dmt_project_get_project_info.

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 usage when needing current project details and explains the conditions for what constitutes the current project, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. An agent must infer the distinction from the tool name and sibling list rather than receiving direct guidance.

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