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 disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool gets info but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, describe what happens if no project is open, or mention potential error conditions. The word 'get' implies safety, but no explicit behavioral context is provided.

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 front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and return values. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy. For a zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's trivial complexity (0 params, no output schema), the description adequately covers what is returned: file path and display name. It does not describe output format or error behavior, but these are not substantial gaps for such a simple getter.

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, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. The schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty properties), and the description adds no parameter ambiguity. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('open project') and states exactly what is returned ('file path and display name'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like project_get_modified, which reports modification state, and project_save, which writes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workspace_info or project_get_modified. The description gives no context for when this getter is appropriate, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites like having a project open.

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