Project information

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly signals a read-only operation with 'Return' and lists all the state it exposes, making the non-mutating nature clear. It does not describe error cases or the meaning of 'access mode,' but for a simple info query the behavior is adequately disclosed.

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 one tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and a compact enumeration of returned data. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists to detail return shape, and the description covers the high-level output categories. However, the input parameter is left underspecified and there is no pointer to sibling tools like list_projects that could provide a valid value. For a single-parameter tool this is a moderate but real gap.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify what value 'project' should take (name, ID, path) or how to obtain it. The parameter name and the phrase 'project root' offer only an implicit hint, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and enumerates the exact resource-level data returned: project root, access mode, managed-worktree metadata, and Git branch state. This clearly identifies it as a per-project info tool and distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or git_status 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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects, file_info, or git_status. The description implies it is for retrieving a single project's details, but it gives no prerequisites, routing conditions, or exclusions.

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