read_project_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it reads the .dorico file as a ZIP archive, runs entirely offline, does not require Dorico to be running, works on unopened projects, and reads only the project wrapper rather than musical content.

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 front-loaded, well-organized into Returns and Note sections, and concise overall. It loses a point for slightly repeating what the parameter schema already states, but every other sentence earns its place.

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 an existing output schema, the description need not spell out return values. It still explains the wrapper-vs-music distinction, offline behavior, and sibling alternatives, so an agent has sufficient context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the path parameter is already documented as a filesystem path that can point to any project on disk, not just the open one. The description repeats that idea and adds the 'offline' framing, but does not add new parameter-level detail 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 opening sentence names a specific verb ('Read'), a specific object ('metadata, flows, and player rosters'), and a specific resource ('saved .dorico file'). The note further distinguishes it from music-extraction and live-state siblings, so an agent can tell it apart from read_score, export_musicxml, get_status, and read_selection.

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 says to use export_musicxml + read_score for notes and rhythms, and identifies get_status/read_selection for the project open in Dorico. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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