get_project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get information' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what information is returned (project settings, metadata, statistics), whether it requires specific permissions, or if there are any limitations like performance considerations. The description is too vague about the actual behavior.

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, efficient sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and gets straight to the point with clear subject-verb-object 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?

For a read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about what information is returned and in what format. The current description is insufficient for an agent to understand what 'information' means in this context or how to interpret the results.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing parameters that don't exist, earning a baseline 4 for this dimension.

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 information') and target resource ('current After Effects project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from siblings like 'get_composition_info' or 'get_layer_info', but the focus on 'project' rather than specific components provides adequate distinction.

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 like 'get_composition_info' or 'get_layer_info' for more specific information needs. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as requiring an open project or what context this tool operates within.

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