get_project

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

With no annotations, the description only adds authentication requirement and credit cost (0). It does not disclose read-only nature, side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, zero unnecessary words. Every sentence adds 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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing need to explain return values), the description lacks explanation for the input parameter and does not cover error cases or usage context. Incomplete for a single-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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and the only parameter, project_id, is not mentioned in the description. The description fails to explain that the parameter identifies which project to retrieve.

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 the verb 'Get' and resource 'project details' and specifies included items (competitors, Google connections), distinguishing it from siblings like get_competitors and get_google_connections.

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 when to use this tool (to get a full project view) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. There is no guidance on selecting between this and more specific tools like get_competitors.

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