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. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is appropriate, but it does not state potential side effects, permission requirements, or error handling (e.g., if no project is open). Given the low risk of a get operation, this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

A single, dense sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, followed by a concise list of returned fields. No wasted words; every element contributes information.

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 parameterless read-only tool with no output schema, the description lists the key metadata fields expected in the response. It does not specify data types or error conditions, but for this simple case it is largely sufficient. A minor gap is the lack of mention about behavior when no project is loaded.

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, so the schema is empty. The description correctly omits parameter details since there are none, and the baseline of 4 applies for parameterless tools.

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 explicitly states 'Get current project metadata' and enumerates the returned fields (duration, tracks, note groups, tempo marks, measure marks), making the resource and scope unambiguous. It clearly differentiates from sibling get_* tools that target server status, logs, or individual entities.

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 like get_server_status or list_tracks. There is no mention of selection criteria, exclusions, or conditions, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.

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