project_get_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a critical behavioral trait: using 'Commands' pegs CPU and crashes without autosave. This adds significant value beyond the schema, though it doesn't mention read-only nature or performance for other types.

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 very concise: two sentences defining purpose and a warning. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value, with zero wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, valid inputs, and a critical warning. It does not describe output format, but given the simplicity, completeness is adequate.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It lists all accepted values for 'info_type' (Tracks, Clips, Envelopes, Labels, Boxes) and explicitly excludes 'Commands' with explanation. This adds substantial meaning 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 the tool retrieves information about the current project, using the verb 'Get' and specific resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling 'track_get_info', which also retrieves info but at track level.

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 explicitly warns against using 'Commands' and lists valid info types, providing clear guidance on what not to use. However, it lacks broader context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'track_get_info'.

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