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 does include a useful '[READ ONLY]' flag, signaling that this operation has no side effects. However, it does not mention prerequisites like a connected Mechanical application, nor what happens if no project is open, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 with the read-only indicator front-loaded. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, earning high marks for structure.

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?

Despite having no parameters and an output schema, the description is too generic to disambiguate this tool among 24 siblings. It does not explain what 'project info' encompasses or why an agent would pick this over get_model_summary or get_tree, creating a real tool-selection gap.

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 there is nothing for the description to document. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter meaning because none is needed.

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 a verb ('Inspect') and a resource ('Mechanical model data'), but the resource is broad and could describe many sibling tools such as get_model_summary or get_geometry_bodies. It does not specify what 'project info' actually includes, so it fails to distinguish this tool from its inspection siblings.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. No scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess whether this or another inspection tool is appropriate.

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