scratchjr_get_project

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuine value beyond those annotations by disclosing that the read includes unsaved editor state when open — a behavioral trait the agent needs to know. 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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose and scope first, then the unsaved-state nuance, then the usage trigger. No redundancy, no filler.

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 single-parameter read tool with safety annotations in place and no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned content (project data, page/object IDs, revision). Minor ambiguity remains around what 'when open' means, but the tool is simple enough that this is adequate.

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%; projectId is fully documented ('Project ID from list_projects or create_project'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 applies and nothing more is demanded.

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 ('Read') and resource ('project data, page/object IDs and revision'), with the distinct behavioral note about unsaved editor state. It's clearly differentiable from siblings like list_projects or edit_project by content, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Call before editing' provides a clear trigger condition for when this tool should be invoked. It gives solid context but stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance or naming alternatives such as edit_project/save_project.

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