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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by enumerating the returned metadata categories and clarifying that the liveUrl lets signed-in organization members watch progress without starting Blender work. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the operation actually returns.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get project metadata') and then uses a colon-delimited list of concrete return items. Every element contributes information, 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?

Given the tool has a single required parameter, a full schema for that parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main metadata categories and the special liveUrl behavior. It could be slightly more complete by noting when to prefer this over related read tools, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 only one parameter, projectId, and the schema describes it fully with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, but since the schema already provides complete meaning, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project metadata') and enumerates the concrete data returned: head revision, recent revisions, active jobs, preview artifact, policy limits, and a liveUrl. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling projects_list or project_update.

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 for retrieving detailed metadata for a single project as opposed to listing projects, but it never states when to use project_get versus projects_list, artifact_get, or job_get. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are provided, leaving the usage context to inference.

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