Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the title and annotations already imply; it does not mention error cases, missing project behavior, or any side effects.

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?

One sentence, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the purpose and input.

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 tool is a simple single-parameter read-only getter with complete schema and annotations. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It does not describe the response shape or not-found behavior, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema.

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 description coverage is 100% and the 'name' parameter is fully documented as 'Project name to retrieve'. The description only restates this as 'by name' and adds no additional semantic detail, so it meets the baseline without meaningfully extending the 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('saved context for a specific project'), and a selection criterion ('by name'). It clearly differentiates this from memory_project_list (all projects) and memory_project_save (write operation), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 when you need a single project by name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like memory_project_list or memory_project_save. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives, so the guidance is only implied.

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