get_projectUse this when an agent needs to get one public project by canonical identifier.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Canonical public identifier |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the base safety profile is known. The description adds the important scope limitation that the project must be public, and clarifies it returns exactly one result ('one public project').
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the use case and ends with the identifying mechanism. Every word earns its place.
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?
This is a simple read-only get-by-id tool: one required parameter with a complete schema, an output schema, and safety annotations. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing; the description appropriately stays minimal.
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% – the schema already explains id as 'Canonical public identifier.' The description's phrase 'by canonical identifier' simply restates the parameter's meaning without adding format, constraints, or edge-case behavior.
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 uses the specific verb 'get' with the resource 'project' and narrows to 'one public project by canonical identifier.' The verb-resource pair clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_publications or search_work.
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 phrase 'Use this when an agent needs to...' gives a direct invocation condition. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, so it stops short of full routing 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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource/action except search_work and search_writing, which could be confused since 'work' and 'writing' both imply portfolio content; descriptions clarify one is selected projects and the other publications, but the boundary is not immediately obvious. The get_project/get_publication and list/search operations are otherwise clearly separated.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: get_ for single items, search_/list_ for discovery. No mixed conventions or vague verbs like 'process' or 'do'. The names accurately reflect their operations.
Seven tools is well within the ideal range and each tool covers a distinct aspect of a personal portfolio (contact, experience, projects, publications, writing). Nothing feels redundant or excessive for the site's purpose.
The read-only personal-site domain is well covered: contact, experience, projects, and publications are all accessible. Minor gap: projects lack a dedicated list_all equivalent, relying on search_work for discovery, but this is workable for the scope.