get_project_info

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

Behavioral traits are partially disclosed: the tool is public and requires no authentication, implying a safe read operation. However, without annotations, the description does not confirm read-only behavior or describe the return format, which is a minor gap.

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, well-structured sentence that covers the tool's purpose and a key usage trait (public without API key) with no unnecessary words.

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 simple parameterless tool, the description covers the purpose and access method adequately. However, the absence of an output schema means the agent lacks details on return structure, slightly reducing 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?

With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add param semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate as the tool is parameterless and clearly described.

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 explicitly states the tool returns 'general information about Toleno Network' and lists specific categories (blockchain, token details, website, etc.), making the purpose clear and distinct from siblings like get_faq or get_tokenomics.

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 indicates the tool is public and requires no API key, which provides usage context. However, it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus sibling tools for specific aspects like tokenomics or roadmap, leaving the agent to infer.

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