project_info

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is cheap, performs 'one file listing,' does not compile, and is safe to call before other actions. It also discloses what kind of information the agent will receive, making side effects and cost expectations transparent.

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 only two sentences but packs in purpose, output contents, cost, timing, and decision guidance. Every clause earns its place, and the most important directive ('Report what KIND of project... before doing anything else') is front-loaded.

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 description covers what the tool returns at a high level (format, root, count, bibliography files), when to call it, and what it costs. There is no output schema, so a bit more specificity about the exact shape or possible values could help, but the listed outputs are sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly in practice.

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 description coverage is 100%, with a detailed explanation of project_id including format, source (list_projects / project URL), and exclusions (not a filesystem path or project name). The description does not add parameter-level semantics, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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 names a specific verb ('Report'), the resource ('project'), and the exact scope: project format (Typst vs LaTeX), likely compile root, source file count, and declared bibliography files. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_files or status_summary by focusing on project-kind identification rather than generic listing or status.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this first' and gives the triggering condition: 'when you do not already know the project's format.' It also explains practical value (choosing `= Heading` vs `\section{}`). However, it does not name specific alternative tools or describe when one of those would be preferred, so it stops short of full alternative comparison.

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