crewai_project_info

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

No annotations provided. The description indicates it's a read operation with no side effects, listing what it returns (dependencies, configs, source files). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or depth of file scanning. For a read tool with no annotations, more transparency would be beneficial.

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?

Description is two sentences: first states purpose, second summarizes return contents. It is concise and front-loaded, with no redundant 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately describes the tool's return categories (pyproject.toml dependencies, YAML configs, Python source files). With one parameter and clear output, it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required parameter 'project_name' described as 'Name of the project'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so 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 reads the structure and core configurations of a CrewAI project, specifying the verb 'Read' and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings like crewai_create_project and crewai_define_agent.

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?

Usage is implied for inspecting project state but not explicitly stated. There is no guidance on when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use it. Among siblings, only this tool is for reading, but no exclusions are provided.

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