eda_dmt_project_get_project_info

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

With no annotations, the description itself must disclose behavior. It states the return type is a Promise resolving to a brief project item or undefined when retrieval fails, which is meaningful. However, it does not discuss side effects, permissions, or the meaning of 'brief' beyond the name, leaving some burden unmet.

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: a signature, a one-line purpose statement, and a return/error note. Nothing is wasted, though there is mild redundancy between the English signature and the Chinese explanation.

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 description conveys the core call and what it returns/fails with, but it does not differentiate from the current-project getter or describe the fields of IDMT_BriefProjectItem despite there being no output schema. This is adequate for a simple getter but not 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 schema only describes generic args and windowId wrappers, so the included signature adds real semantics: the actual parameter is projectUuid as a string. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail about the positional argument.

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 the operation clearly: obtaining project properties via a project UUID, with the API signature shown. It is distinct from the sibling get_current_project_info because it is keyed by a UUID, though it does not explicitly name that sibling.

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 signature implies the tool should be used when a projectUuid is available, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over get_current_project_info, get_all_projects_uuid, or other project-related tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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