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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint: true annotation, indicating a read-only operation. It adds transparency by detailing the exact data returned (namespace, version, project_intent and its subcomponents), which goes beyond the annotation's minimal hint.

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 excessively verbose and repetitive, repeating 'BUILD TO THIS' and using all-caps phrases that add noise. It could be reduced to a few concise sentences without losing any essential information, and the current structure hinders readability.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of the return content (namespace, version, project_intent breakdown). It lacks details on error handling and response format, but the essentials are covered, making it adequate but not exhaustive.

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 sole parameter project_uuid is fully described in the schema ('Project UUID (from build_list_projects)'), and the description does not introduce any additional meaning or constraints. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 it retrieves one project's details, listing specific elements like schema_namespace, last published version, and project_intent. However, the heavy repetition and capitalization ('BUILD TO THIS') obscure the core purpose and make it less crisp than it could be.

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 does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over any sibling tools (e.g., build_list_projects for multiple projects, build_get_bundle for bundles). It implies a single-project lookup but lacks direct alternative comparisons or conditions.

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