get_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get information'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for a tool with no annotations or output schema, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., project metadata, settings), potential errors, or how it fits into the broader context of sibling tools. For a read operation with no structured output, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'projectId' clearly documented as 'Project identifier'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples (e.g., numeric ID, string) or where to find the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get information about a project' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('project'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project' or 'delete_project' by being a read operation, but doesn't specify what makes it different from other read tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_frame_data'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), exclusions, or compare it to siblings like 'list_projects' for listing all projects versus getting details for a specific one. Usage is implied only by the tool name and parameter.

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