project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation ('Get information') but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as prerequisites, side effects, failure modes, or what constitutes the 'project environment.' This adds only slightly more than the tool name itself.

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, eight-word sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant wording. It is ideally concise for a tool of this simplicity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the output schema, and the optional parameter, the description is adequate but not complete. It leaves ambiguity about how the 'current project environment' is determined (e.g., from the path parameter or working directory) and what aspects of the environment are included, which could matter for an agent selecting or invoking the 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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter, 'path', with a clear description ('Project root directory.') and 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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 clearly states the tool retrieves information about the current project environment, using a specific verb and resource scope. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like project_dashboard, the focus on 'environment' provides reasonable 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 intended usage is implied by the tool's name and description—use it when you need information about the current project environment. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of related tools such as project_dashboard or assess_project_readiness, nor any mention of exclusions.

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