get_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only restates the getter nature and lists returned fields, without disclosing failure behavior (e.g., no open project), whether the operation is strictly read-only, or what 'status' means.

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 that front-loads the verb and resource and lists key output areas without filler or 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-argument getter, this is minimally viable: an agent knows to invoke it for current project information and what broad categories to expect. However, without an output schema or sibling differentiation, it leaves ambiguity about overlap with get_full_project_overview and behavior when no project is open.

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter documentation gap. The description adds value by enumerating the categories of returned information, which is the relevant context for an argument-less call.

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 states a clear verb ('Gets') and resource ('current project'), and gives concrete output facets (name, path, settings, status). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like get_full_project_overview or get_project_item_info, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase 'current project' implies the tool is for active-project data with no project identifier, which is useful context. However, it does not mention when to prefer alternatives such as get_full_project_overview or get_project_item_info, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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