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 disclosure burden. It reveals that two distinct payloads are returned (a well-known JSON descriptor and a human summary), which is more than the name conveys, but it says nothing about caching, authentication requirements, or whether the file can fail to exist. For a zero-param read tool this is adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the primary output (the descriptor) and appends the secondary output. Every word earns its place with no redundant restatement of the title.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description fully characterizes what the tool returns and where the machine-readable content lives. It lacks only details such as failure behavior or the distinction between the two payload formats, which keeps it short of perfect.

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?

There are zero parameters, so by the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed, and the schema is fully empty and covered.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and two concrete resources: the Spirit Cards machine-readable project descriptor at a named well-known path, plus a human summary of the game. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_card or get_pool, which return different resource categories.

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 this is the entry-point/overview tool by describing both machine-readable and human-facing outputs, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over siblings such as get_mining_guide. No exclusions are named, so the agent must infer the usage boundary.

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