get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds that the tool returns name, description, and instructions, and that instructions are unique to this tool. While it does not mention permissions or error handling, for a read-only tool with readOnlyHint this is adequate context beyond the annotation.

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 with no filler, front-loading the core action ('Read one project') and then adding a crucial distinguishing detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read tool with one parameter and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description covers the purpose, the returned content (name, description, instructions), and a key differentiation from list_projects. No output schema exists, but the description adequately communicates what is returned. A minor gap is the lack of error-case mention, but the core context is sufficient.

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 schema has one parameter project_id with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention project_id at all, nor does it clarify how to identify the project. Given the low schema coverage, the description needed to compensate but did not, relying on the parameter name alone.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'one project' and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling tool list_projects by noting that it is the only tool that returns instructions. This clearly states what the tool does and why it is distinct.

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 explicitly provides an alternative and a condition for use: 'Only this tool returns the instructions — list_projects does not carry them.' This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool over a sibling, and implies when not to use it (for listing without instructions).

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