Get a Redmine project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context: 'for the configured API user', the visibility qualifier, and the explicit guarantee 'This tool never changes Redmine data'. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the final sentence adds value with the safety guarantee. The second sentence largely mirrors the schema, creating slight redundancy, but the overall description remains compact and well organized.

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 and read-only annotations covering safety, the description provides everything needed to invoke the tool correctly: endpoint, required parameter, optional includes, user scoping, and non-mutation guarantee. Nothing critical is missing for this low-complexity, two-parameter 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%, so the schema already documents project_id and include meaning. The description restates these semantics ('positive numeric project ID or valid project identifier', 'Optionally include...') without adding format, syntax, or behavioral detail beyond the schema, meriting the baseline 3.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Read one visible Redmine project from GET /projects/:id.json'. 'One' differentiates it from list-style siblings like list_projects, and the endpoint plus 'visible' scoping makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Clear usage context is provided: the tool reads a single project by ID or identifier, with optional association includes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives such as list_projects for enumerating all projects, so the when-not guidance is implied rather than stated.

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