Get Project Status

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

Annotations cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the bar. The description adds useful context about the return fields (text, color, title, author, created_at) and color semantics. However, it does not clarify that those fields require opt_fields, a minor precision issue.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and no unnecessary words. It efficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns.

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, the description combined with annotations and schema is complete: it explains the purpose, return fields, and parameter usage. The only minor gap (optional vs default fields) is addressed by the schema, so no major missing context.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including examples and default fields. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 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 it gets a single project status update by GID, using the specific verb 'Get' plus the resource and scope. The word 'single' distinguishes it from the plural sibling asana_get_project_statuses.

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 usage when you have a GID and need one status, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention exclusions. The schema hints at getting GIDs from asana_get_project_statuses, but this is not in the description itself.

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