get_project_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions extracting metadata, implying read-only operation, but does not specify side effects, error handling (e.g., missing build file), or required permissions. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 sentence that is direct and efficient. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the return structure or behavior in edge cases. It lists extracted items but does not mention format, what happens if build files are absent, or how the tool interacts with other project state (e.g., current project). Medium completeness.

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 (100% coverage trivially), so the description adds value by specifying what the tool does without needing parameters. The description compensates for the lack of schema detail by naming the extracted fields.

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 the tool's purpose: extracting project metadata from pom.xml or build.gradle, including specific items like Java version, Spring Boot version, build tool, and dependencies. It uses a specific verb (Extract) and resource (project metadata), distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 the tool is for retrieving project metadata but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like find_usages or summarize_class. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., project must be cloned) or exclusions is provided.

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