project_get_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns project info (not modified), and explains the behavior of path (always present) and file_path (empty for unsaved projects). No mention of side effects or errors, but for a read-only info tool this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage guidance, and field clarification. No extraneous information. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no input parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and provides an alternative for post-production. No gaps.

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?

There are 0 input parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter semantics but instead explains output fields (path, file_path) which is valuable context beyond the empty input schema.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'project info', listing specific attributes: name, BPM, time sig, tracks, length, markers, render settings. Distinguishes from sibling project_get_overview by explicitly recommending it for post-production work.

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?

Explicitly advises to prefer project_get_overview() for post-production, explaining it combines this info with region list, change_count, and selection summary. Also clarifies the distinction between path and file_path, guiding correct usage.

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