get_project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the flexible lookup mechanism and priority order among parameters, as well as what information is returned. It does not mention error cases or side effects, but for a read-only tool the disclosed detail is sufficient and goes beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded with the main purpose. It is a bit longer than strictly necessary, but each sentence contributes useful information, and the structured format aids scannability.

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 the tool's complexity and absence of annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers the lookup logic, usage timing, and the nature of returned data. It does not describe the exact return format or error handling, but the provided context is enough for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it 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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the combination semantics and the priority order (project_id > workspace_path > project_name), which is not explicit in the schema itself.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('comprehensive information about a project'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by listing the range of data retrieved (metadata, tech stack, decisions, file dependencies, change history), setting it apart from the more specific getters like get_project_tasks or get_tech_stack.

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 'WHEN TO USE' section provides concrete contexts for using the tool, such as before starting work or resuming a project. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or cite alternative tools for narrower queries, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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