project_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only behavior is clear. The description adds the specific output scope ('common project metadata and units') but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as whether it returns live or cached data. It does not contradict the annotations.

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, directly worded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It fully states the purpose in a compact way, which is ideal for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only tool with no parameters and an output schema available, the description is adequate. It indicates the broad content ('project metadata and units') without excessive detail. While 'common' is somewhat vague, the output schema would fill in specifics, so this level is sufficient.

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, which sets a baseline of 4. There is nothing for the description to explain about inputs. The empty schema fully covers the parameter space, so the description is not required to add parameter-related information.

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 states the tool 'Return common project metadata and units' with a clear verb and resource. It is specific enough to convey the basic purpose but does not distinguish it from similar sibling tools like inspect or model_state. It provides the core function without ambiguity.

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. The description gives no context on prevalence, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a tool named project_info among many related tools, this lack of usage direction makes it harder to select appropriately.

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