project_get_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds critical context by listing valid 'info_type' values (Tracks, Clips, Envelopes, Labels, Boxes, Commands) which the schema lacks as enums. It also implies statefulness by referencing 'current project'. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, what happens if no project is open, or what data structure is returned.

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 appropriately brief with no wasted words, using a standard Python docstring format (description + Args). However, given the lack of output schema and annotations, the extreme brevity leaves important behavioral gaps that another sentence could address.

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 single-parameter tool, the description is minimally viable. However, given the confusing sibling 'track_get_info' and lack of output schema, it should explain the scope of returned data (e.g., whether it returns metadata vs. audio data) and error conditions. The current description leaves significant operational ambiguity.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting the valid string values for 'info_type' in the Args section. While it doesn't explain what 'Boxes' or 'Commands' specifically return, providing the enumerated values is essential for correct parameter usage where the schema fails to constrain inputs.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('information about the current project'), establishing a clear purpose. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'track_get_info', which could confuse the agent about whether to get track info from this project-level tool or the track-specific one.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'track_get_info', nor any mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring an open project). The description assumes context without stating conditions for successful invocation.

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