get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It states the tool is a read-only retrieval ('Get') and indicates the return contents, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, performance implications, or what 'live editor' means in terms of state. The coverage is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the action and resource, then specify return contents. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the purpose and return values. It could elaborate on the exact structure or format of the returned data, but given the low complexity, the description 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, so the schema is trivially covered at 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail because none exist, which aligns with the baseline of 4 for parameter-less tools.

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 the tool gets the 'current Purl project structure from the live editor' and specifies what is returned ('cells, objects, and settings'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_object or get_script, which target specific elements rather than the whole project structure.

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 implies the tool is used to fetch the overall project structure, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_object or list_objects. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons, so guidance is only implied by the description's scope.

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