get_project_details

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get project information', implying a read operation but not confirming it. It does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, or whether the operation is idempotent or destructive.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but under-specified. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, providing minimal value to the agent. A concise but complete description would include context about what information is returned.

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 complexity (1 required param, no annotations, many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to differentiate from list_projects, explain the output, or mention any constraints. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of descriptive guidance.

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 0% description coverage for the single parameter project_id, and the tool description adds no explanation of its meaning or format. The agent only knows it is a required string with no further context.

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 the verb 'Get' and the resource 'project information', which clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling get_* tools by the resource name (project vs. table, environment, etc.), though it could be more specific about the information returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects or get_table_details. The description does not mention that it requires a project_id or that it returns details for a single project, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameter name alone.

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