project_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (layers top-first, ids, boxes, effects, masks), which implies a non-mutating query, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, permissions, or cost/rate characteristics.

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?

Very compact: one clause listing return contents plus one sentence on the detail flag. Front-loaded and free of filler, though the telegraphic style leaves the verb implicit.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does some heavy lifting by enumerating returned fields, but it leaves the 'project' parameter undocumented and does not fully define the detail modes, so an agent lacks enough to call it confidently in all cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only partially explains 'detail' ('full' adds all params) and says nothing about the 'project' parameter or what 'normal' (the default) returns versus 'full'.

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 names the resource (document state) and enumerates the fields it returns: size, layers with ids, boxes, effects, masks. An agent can tell it is a read/query tool for the current document, though it never states an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_image or describe_image.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as project_settings, preview, or analyze_image, and no prerequisites are stated. The only usage hint is the incidental note that detail='full' adds all params.

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