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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Retrieve' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention what metadata is returned, whether the project must exist, whether it opens an editor, or what happens on invalid input. For an unannotated tool, this is insufficient.

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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core action. It is concise, though slightly too terse for a tool with no annotations or output schema.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what kinds of metadata are returned and what the agent should expect. It does neither. The word 'metadata' is too vague for an agent to reliably interpret the tool's result or know how it differs from read_project_settings.

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 schema describes projectPath as 'Godot project path' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat parameter meaning. However, the description also does not add useful nuance, such as whether projectPath should point to a directory containing project.godot or to the project.godot file itself. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb-resource pairing: 'Retrieve metadata about a Godot project.' It is clear about the tool's general purpose and aligns with the name. However, 'metadata' is somewhat broad and does not clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like read_project_settings or get_godot_version.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not reference any sibling tools. There are many similar project-related tools in the sibling list, so an agent has no basis for deciding between them. This is a clear gap.

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