get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and listing the included components gives some idea of the response scope. However, it does not mention potential prerequisites (e.g., project existence), error behavior, or any special access requirements, which would be helpful for such a tool.

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 concise: one sentence outlining the tool's purpose and a short Args section for the parameter. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers the main functionality and parameter meaning. It could be enhanced with usage guidelines or notes on error handling, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 only one parameter (project_id) with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description includes an Args block explaining 'project_id: The ID of the project.' This adds basic meaning beyond the property name, but it is minimal and does not elaborate on formats, constraints, or relationship to other entities.

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 project details including BOM, linked inventory, printers, trackers, and files.' This specifies the verb (get), the resource (a project), and the scope (full details), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects and get_dashboard.

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 need comprehensive project information including BOM, inventory, printers, trackers, and files. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context is clear that this is for retrieving a single project by ID rather than listing all projects.

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