get_project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses the underlying data source ('~/.fw-context/projects.db'), states 'Read-only. No side effects.' and defines the failure contract ('On failure the dict holds only error with the reason'). This is excellent behavioral disclosure beyond the bare operation.

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 organized with a front-loaded summary, usage context, Args, and Returns sections. It is slightly redundant around failure behavior — the error dict is described both in Returns and again in the final sentence — but overall it is compact and scannable.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, data source, side-effect profile, return fields, and error shape. The only notable gap is that it does not state what happens if project_id is empty or omitted, given the parameter has a default and is not marked required.

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 already provides 100% coverage by describing project_id as 'Project ID (UUID4 hex) to look up.' The description's Args section largely repeats this. It adds context that the ID must be registered, but does not explain behavior for an omitted or invalid project_id, so it provides only marginal additional semantic value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return project metadata (name, type, root_path) for a project ID.' It clearly identifies this as a single-project lookup against a global registry, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects and get_active_build by focusing on UUID4-based identification and build-system metadata.

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 clear usage context: 'Use this to identify a project from its UUID4 — find out what build system it uses, its name, and where it was last indexed.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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