get_project_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It says 'Read,' indicating a non-mutating operation, but it doesn't explain what 'selected settings' means, whether it returns raw file contents or parsed data, or any error conditions. This leaves significant ambiguity about behavior.

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 terse sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and the resource. There are no wasted words; it is efficient and structurally sound.

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?

The description omits return value details, the scope of 'selected settings,' and the tool's relationship to other project-related tools. With no output schema or annotations to compensate, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand what to expect.

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 only parameter, projectPath, is fully described in the schema with default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a read operation targeting 'project.godot metadata and selected settings.' It distinguishes the resource from sibling tools like get_godot_version or list_projects, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_project_setting or check_project. It only describes what the tool does, without context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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