get_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions potential behavior ('current active project') but fails to disclose what 'detailed information' includes, whether the operation is read-only, or any potential side effects. This lack of behavioral detail is a gap for a tool dealing with project data.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the essential purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter), but there is no output schema, and the description does not specify what information is returned. The context is incomplete for an AI agent trying to understand what 'detailed information' means or how to interpret the result. More detail on return value would be needed for full clarity.

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 schema description fully covers the single parameter 'projectPath', including the optional behavior when omitted. The tool description only restates this with slightly different wording ('current active project' vs 'current project'), adding no meaningful extra meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: retrieving detailed project information, with an option to target the current active project. It is specific about the action ('get') and resource ('project'), though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_current_session' or 'list_projects'.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need project details, and specifically mentions the behavior when no path is given (returns current project). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives, such as using 'get_current_session' for session-level info.

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