project_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get detailed information' and does not explicitly mention that this is a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., project not found), authentication requirements, or the structure of the returned details. The description adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence that is clear, front-loaded, and free of unnecessary words. It gets straight to the point without wasting space, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks depth. It does not describe what 'detailed information' includes, nor does it mention any constraints or error scenarios. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description could provide more context to be truly complete.

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 input schema fully describes 'project_id' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description's mention of 'specific project' aligns with the parameter but does not enrich it beyond the schema's own description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the tool's function: 'Get detailed information about a specific project'. It uses a specific verb ('get'), identifies the resource ('project'), and narrows scope to 'specific project', which distinguishes it from the sibling 'project_list' that likely lists all projects.

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 usage for retrieving one project but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'project_list' or state when not to use it. The word 'specific' hints at a singular project, but there is no clear when-to-use guidance or exclusions.

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