Get project defaults

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

readOnlyHint is already declared by annotations, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: the response shape '{ projectDefaults }' and the crucial semantics that unset keys are absent and fall back to built-in values. This is exactly the kind of return-value subtlety annotations cannot convey, though nothing is said about permissions or rate limits (low relevance for a read).

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?

Two sentences, no padding: the identity/scope of the resource comes first, the return shape and absent-key semantics second, the handoff to set_project_defaults last. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies what is missing from structured data: the returned key name, the absent-key fallback rule, and the companion mutation tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed and spends its words on the return payload instead.

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?

States the specific resource ('the settings every new project starts with') and enumerates the fields it covers (language, vocabulary, instructions, focus, clip lengths, pauses, captions, refine steps). The closing sentence names its mutation counterpart set_project_defaults, so the agent can distinguish it from the rewrite tool without inspecting schemas.

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?

Clearly frames the tool as the read side of project defaults and explicitly routes mutation to set_project_defaults. It does not state when-not conditions (e.g., when get_project would be preferred for a specific project's settings), but for a zero-argument getter the intended context is unambiguous.

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