get_project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the expected output (metadata, scripts, deps, config files, file tree) and implies a read-only, safe operation. It could add explicit statements about non-modification, but for an info-gathering tool, the behavior is well conveyed.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does and when to invoke it.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it enumerates all major output categories, gives a clear usage directive, and is distinguishable from sibling tools. An agent can confidently decide to call it first when exploring a project.

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 zero parameters, so the schema provides no meaningful information. The description compensates by explaining what the tool returns, adding context that helps an agent understand the tool's value despite the empty parameter list.

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 'Get a full overview of the project' and enumerates specific contents (package.json metadata, npm scripts, dependencies, config files, two-level file tree). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'get_active_project', which likely focuses on just the active project path.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Always call this first when starting to work on a new project.' However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternative sibling tools for more specific queries.

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