Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds value by enumerating the default return fields (gid, name, archived, etc.), giving the agent clear expectations about the response structure beyond what annotations provide.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then provides a comprehensive but necessary list of default fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

As a simple read-only lookup by ID, the description, combined with the high-quality schema and annotations, is fully sufficient. It clarifies the default output fields and the key parameter source, making the tool easy to invoke correctly without needing output schema or further details.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions for both project_id and opt_fields. The description repeats the default field list already present in the opt_fields schema but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get full details for a project by GID' with a specific verb and resource, and it lists the default return fields. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asana_get_project_sections or asana_get_project_status, which have narrower scopes.

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 use when full project details are needed by GID, and the schema notes that project_id can be obtained from asana_search_projects. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like asana_get_project_task_counts, leaving the guidance slightly implicit.

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