Project (read)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this with 'no side effects' and adds what each action actually surfaces (name, id, folder, database, presets). It says nothing about authentication, permissions, or pagination, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then a scannable action list with one line per action and no filler. Every line maps to a distinct enum value.

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?

With an output schema present, return shapes need not be described, and the description still summarizes what each action yields. All five enum values are accounted for, so an agent can pick the right action and call it without consulting another 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the schema only lists the action enum strings and defers to the description ('see the description or this server's describe_action tool'). The description therefore earns credit by spelling out each action's behavior and noting that get_settings takes an optional keys list. It stops short of defining the key format or value types.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Read project state') and immediately enumerates the five concrete actions it exposes, so the agent knows exactly what scope of project data is reachable. The 'read' naming plus the explicit 'no side effects' clause cleanly separates it from the project_write and project_delete siblings.

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?

'use it to find ids and check results' gives a concrete motivating scenario rather than leaving usage implicit. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when-not to use it, but the read/write/delete sibling naming makes the boundary largely self-evident.

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