memory_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Get detailed info,' implying a read operation, but does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or how the optional null parameter behaves (e.g., defaults to current project). The bare description fails to provide transparency beyond the basic action.

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 clear sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core action, but it omits critical information about the parameter and usage context. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness; here it does.

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 tool is simple with one parameter, but the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, the parameter and default behavior are unexplained. For a tool with 0% schema coverage, the description should provide more context about the project parameter and when to use it. The current description does not enable safe and effective invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain the 'project' parameter at all. It lacks format, valid values, default behavior, or semantics. The output schema exists but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema structure. This is insufficient for the agent to use the parameter correctly.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('detailed info for a project'), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_list_projects (which lists projects) and memory_store (which stores data). However, it does not clarify what 'detailed info' includes or that the optional parameter defaults to the current project, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large number of sibling tools (e.g., memory_list_projects, memory_store, memory_recall), the lack of usage context or exclusions leaves the agent without decision support.

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