project_get_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes clear this is a read-only project-info operation and discloses the limitations: it provides track summaries, not full clip lists. It could add explicit statements about side effects or preconditions, but the 'Get' verb and enumerated fields already communicate the essential 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 concise and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates the information returned; the second sentence gives a necessary routing hint to a sibling tool. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: path, display name, unsaved changes, duration, and per-track fields. It lacks explicit formatting or type details for these fields and doesn't mention prerequisites like having a project open, but for a zero-parameter get_info tool it is reasonably complete.

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 has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies, and no additional parameter semantics are necessary.

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 what the tool does: retrieve project-wide information, and enumerates the exact fields returned (path, display name, unsaved-changes state, duration, and per-track summary). It also explicitly differentiates itself from track_get_info by directing the agent to use a track's id for full clip lists.

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 a clear usage guideline: use this tool for project-level summary information, and use track_get_info with a track id when full clip or label data is needed. This explicitly routes the agent to the appropriate alternative rather than leaving it to infer.

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