get_projectGet a 2ools project's brief, selected pages, active version, and compact version history. Does not return generated source code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | 2ools project ID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description need not restate those. The description adds value by disclosing that the tool excludes generated source code (a key behavioral constraint). The performance profile (read-only, safe, idempotent) is well-covered. No contradictions are present.
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 sentences, front-loading the primary purpose and then clarifying a key exclusion. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is zero redundancy. The length is appropriate for the tool's complexity (one parameter, no output schema).
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 annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false) and the output schema being absent, the major gap is that the description does not state the return format (e.g., is it JSON, does it include timestamps). This is acceptable because no output schema is declared; a brief hint about the return type or structure would push this to a 5. The description adequately covers purpose, scope, and an exclusion.
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 100%, and the sole parameter 'project_id' is fully described in the schema with a UUID format and pattern. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., how to obtain the ID, or whether it refers to a current or archived project). Per the rubric, baseline 3 is correct when schema coverage is high.
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 verb 'Get' and the specific resource '2ools project', and explicitly lists the four categories of data returned: brief, selected pages, active version, and compact version history. It also distinguishes itself from other 'get_project_*' siblings like get_project_activity or get_project_mission by detailing exactly what it retrieves.
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 this is the tool to use for a comprehensive snapshot of project metadata (brief, pages, version, version history). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the many sibling tools that cover specific slices (get_project_context, get_project_discipline, get_project_mission), the explicit negative statement 'Does not return generated source code' helps agents avoid misusing it for code retrieval. A clear 'when-not' improves guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 74 tools, many serve similar project/version/agent workflows (e.g., get_project vs get_project_context vs get_project_activity). Detailed descriptions help but the sheer volume creates selection risk for agents, especially between approve_version/approve_artifact_version and reject counterparts.
Names predominantly follow a verb_object pattern (list_projects, create_public_preview, update_project_mission). Exceptions like 'act_on_project_os_task' and 'build_from_conversation' are minor, but the strong convention overall makes it predictable.
74 tools is extreme—more than double the typical upper bound and far beyond what an agent can feasibly consider per task. The domain is broad, but the count borders on overwhelming and suggests lack of consolidation.
The surface covers project lifecycle, versioning, builds, agents, artifacts, feedback, and work assignments comprehensively. Yet there is no explicit create/delete project tool (only via build_from_conversation or start_project_on_engine), and no direct update to project metadata beyond mission/plan, leaving minor gaps.