get_project_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only uses the verb 'Get' to imply a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, what the return format is, or whether any project must be open. This lack of detail for a simple getter leaves the agent with uncertainty about side effects and output structure.

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, front-loaded sentence that lists exactly the six pieces of information the tool provides. Every word earns its place, with no redundant explanations or filler, making it highly efficient and readable.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description is sufficient for a simple parameterless getter by clearly enumerating the returned fields. However, it falls short of fully complete by not specifying the return format (e.g., JSON object) or any preconditions, which could be inferred from similar tools but is not explicitly stated.

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, and the schema is trivially complete with no properties. Per the rubric, 0 params baseline is 4, and since there are no parameter semantics to explain, the description does not need to add anything beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Get') and resource ('Godot project info') and enumerates the exact fields returned: name, engine version, main scene, viewport size, renderer, and autoloads. This distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like get_project_statistics, which likely provides aggregate metrics.

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. It does not mention when to avoid it or reference sibling tools such as get_autoload or get_project_settings, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the listed fields.

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