Get UI5 project info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this by framing the operation as extraction of metadata and configuration, and it adds useful scope details (UI5/CAP project, listed artifact types). No contradiction exists.

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 leads with the core action and resource, then packs a precise enumeration of extracted items. Every part earns its place and no filler is present.

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?

With an output schema present, a fully documented optional parameter, and strong annotations covering safety, the description plus schema is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. No critical usage or behavior information is missing for this read-only info-retrieval tool.

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 100% for the only parameter, projectPath, which already documents the default workspace root. The description adds no independent parameter-level detail, but the schema fully carries that burden, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb ('Extracts') and a specific resource ('UI5 or CAP project'), then enumerates the concrete metadata categories returned (app ids, framework version, libraries, views, controllers, models, routing, data sources, package scripts). This is sufficiently precise to distinguish it from most 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 usage context by limiting the tool to UI5/CAP projects, but it gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as get_cap_details, get_metadata_summary, or get_version_info. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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