project_data_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that omitting key lists all keys, but says nothing about where the data lives if absent or what happens on a missing key; an output schema exists so return values are not its burden.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose, then a labeled when-to-use, a parameter note, and a worked example. Nothing is bloated, though the example arguably restates information the parameter line already carries.

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-optional-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies purpose, usage context, and parameter behavior. Only edge-case semantics (missing key, empty results) are unaddressed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the single parameter: key is described plus the default behavior (omit it to list all keys). The example reinforces this, though it does not state the key's casing/format conventions.

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?

States a specific verb (Lê) and resource (dados de projeto gravados no DWG) and ties itself to the sibling that writes that data, project_data_set, so the read/write pair is inferable. It stops short of explicitly contrasting the two as alternatives, so it lands just under a 5.

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?

An explicit 'QUANDO USAR' line gives clear context: retrieving project metadata stored in the drawing. There are no exclusions or named alternatives for cases when this tool is the wrong choice (e.g., reading non-project DXF attributes), so it is clear context without routing rules.

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