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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real payload information beyond that: flows are summarized by name and step count, and runs are capped at the three most recent. It does not say whether all flows are returned or truncated, nor what happens with an unknown projectId.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the usage hint, with no filler or redundancy.

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, so return values need not be spelled out, and annotations carry the safety profile; the description's job is therefore modest and mostly done. The remaining gap is whether the flows list is complete or bounded, which matters for an aggregation tool, and behavior on a bad projectId.

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 single required parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Project ID, as returned by Regresco tools'), which sets the baseline at 3. The description contributes nothing further about the parameter, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get one project') and immediately scopes the payload: saved flows with names and step counts, plus the three most recent runs. The word 'one' also separates it from the list_projects-style siblings without needing to name them.

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?

'Use it to see what regression coverage the project already has' gives a clear positive context for selection. It stops short of naming alternatives (get_flow, get_flow_stability, list_runs) or stating when not to use it, so exclusions are absent.

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