get_project

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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already tell the agent this is a safe local read. The description adds useful scope information by naming the specific settings categories returned (including transient state like undo/redo and sequences), which goes slightly beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about behavior when no project is open.

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?

A single compact sentence listing contents, front-loaded with the resource type and zero filler. It is a fragment rather than a sentence, but it wastes no tokens.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required. However, for a tool whose only argument is an optional project selector, the description leaves the core selection semantics (default = current project? name vs. id?) unexplained, which is the one gap an agent actually needs closed.

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 0%, and the single 'project' parameter defaults to null — a meaningful ambiguity (null presumably means the currently open project) that the description never addresses. With no schema text to lean on, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 enumerates the concrete data the tool surfaces (frame rate, output format, OCIO, views, export root, undo/redo state, sequences), so the resource is identifiable. But it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from siblings such as get_app_info or list_projects, which also return project-level state.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus list_projects, get_app_info, or open_project, and no mention of what the optional 'project' argument selects. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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