get_project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read-only overview action and lists returned data. However, it does not explicitly confirm that the tool makes no modifications or describe behavior if no project is open, leaving minor gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. The structure is highly efficient, covering what the tool does and why it matters without redundancy.

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 no-parameter read-only tool, the description lists the key return categories and highlights the importance of track indices for other tools. It is almost complete, though it could mention potential error states or a slightly more detailed return structure, but given the simplicity, it is quite sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is effectively empty. The description appropriately adds no parameter details, and the baseline of 4 applies since there is nothing to explain 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: getting an overview of the currently open project, listing concrete contents like file name, tempo marks, time signatures, and track list with note counts. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting that track indices returned here are used by all other tools, which positions it as a foundational getter.

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 second sentence explicitly conveys usage context: 'Track indices returned here are used by all other tools,' indicating this tool should be called first to obtain indices needed by sibling tools. It provides clear guidance on when to use relative to alternatives, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use.

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