get_project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and explicitly states 'Read-only. No side effects.' It also details the return format (dict with fields or error) and mentions the database location. This is comprehensive for a read-only lookup.

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 well-structured with a summary line, context, and args/returns. It contains no unnecessary words but could be slightly more concise by omitting the restated parameter description.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what it does, how to use it, what it returns, and error handling. No key information is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description in the schema ('Project ID (UUID4 hex) to look up.') is nearly identical to the args section in the description. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, warranting a baseline of 3.

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 it returns project metadata for a given project ID. It specifies the returned fields (name, type, root_path) and indirectly distinguishes from sibling 'list_projects' by focusing on a single project, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to identify a project from its UUID4' which provides clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives like 'list_projects' for enumeration.

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