project_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read operation via '[READ]' but does not specify permissions, side effects, or any constraints. The agent lacks safety information beyond the read 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?

Extremely concise with no unnecessary words. Uses a structured 'Args:' format to present parameters efficiently. Every sentence is valuable.

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?

The description mentions inclusion of byte counts but does not fully describe the return value. Since there is no output schema, a more complete description of the response would be beneficial. The current description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: project (id or full path with examples) and target (server target, optional with default). This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Clearly states it reads one project's details including repo/artifact byte counts. The verb 'detail' and resource 'project' are specific, and the inclusion of byte counts distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_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 it is for retrieving details of a single project but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No comparison to alternatives like pipeline_detail or list_projects is given, leaving the agent to infer context.

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