lokalise_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions required and optional parameters and what is returned (metadata, team info, language progress, key statistics). However, it does not disclose error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which are relevant for a retrieval tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and required parameter, followed by use cases and return summary. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description adequately outlines return types (metadata, team info, language progress, key statistics) and explains optional parameters. It omits potential caveats like pagination (likely irrelevant) or error handling, but covers essential needs for a project status assessment tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of optional parameters: 'includeLanguages (completion rates)' and 'includeKeysSummary (content stats)', which clarifies their role beyond the schema descriptions.

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 'Deep analysis of a single project's health and configuration', specifying the verb (analyze) and resource (single project). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_projects by emphasizing deep analysis of one project.

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 advises using the tool for 'project audits, progress reports, or understanding structure', providing clear use cases. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context of sibling tool names implies a single-project deep dive versus listing or modification tools.

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