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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does usefully disclose the returned surface (previewUrl, workspaceUrl, sourceUrl, last build's failure), which is valuable since there is no output schema. However, it never states that this is a non-mutating read, nor any auth/permission requirement.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then the useful return payload. It is slightly run-on with the appended 'to hand to your human' clause, but there is no filler.

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 one param, no annotations, and no output schema, naming the return fields is a meaningful compensation for the missing output schema. But the sole parameter is entirely unexplained, which leaves a real gap for an agent that does not already know how to source a 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?

There is one required parameter, projectId, and the description never mentions it. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description had room to add meaning and does not — it gives no hint about where to obtain a projectId or its expected format.

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 and resource: 'Get details for a Codebase project.' This clearly distinguishes it from codebase_list_projects and the build/deploy siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead, so it lands at a solid 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and by 'to hand to your human,' which hints at the human-facing context. But it never says when to reach for this versus codebase_list_projects or codebase_get_build_status, and no prerequisites are stated. This is minimum-viable guidance.

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