getProjectInfo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it usefully discloses the return contents (file path, dirty status, compositions, items) in the absence of an output schema. However, it does not state that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, nor mention permissions or any behavioral limits.

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 front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of return fields. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

This is a simple zero-parameter getter, and since no output schema exists, the description does the work of naming the key return fields. It is largely sufficient, though it could spell out the return structure a bit more given the missing output schema.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameters whose meaning needs clarifying, and schema coverage is 100%.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get general project information') and enumerates the payload (file path, dirty status, compositions, items). This is clear enough to distinguish from layer-level getters like getLayerInfo or getSettings, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-naming guidance. The agent must infer the use case purely from the enumerated return fields, and nothing tells it when to prefer this over getSettings, getHistory, or getLayerInfo.

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