get_project_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name. It implies a read operation but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), side effects, or limitations. More detail on behavior is expected.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and includes specific examples. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 basic get-info tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and gives examples of what details are retrieved. However, it omits return format, error scenarios, and any potential prerequisites, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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%—the parameter 'path' is fully described in the schema. The description adds context about the project type (Flutter) and what details are retrieved, which slightly enriches understanding of the parameter's purpose. However, it does not add specific parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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: to get details about an existing Flutter project, listing examples like pubspec, flavors, and config files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (create_flutter_project and list_flutter_projects) by focusing on retrieving information on a single project.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not include conditions, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. While sibling names offer some context, the description itself lacks usage instructions.

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