get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context beyond the schema: sourcePath values are absolute and directly readable by file tools, and the health summary contains counts by severity. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, what happens for missing projects, or any error/authorization behavior.

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 compact sentence that leads with the action and return type, then packs meaningful specifics into parentheticals. Every element adds value and there is no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: project tree hierarchy, sourcePath semantics, and health summary counts. It could enumerate the exact severity levels or response shape, but it provides enough detail for an agent to know what this tool returns and when to call it.

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 description coverage is 100%, with detailed explanations for both dir and projectId, including dir's fallback resolution behavior. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, 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 a specific verb and resource: it returns a project tree with page/artboard hierarchy and a pipeline health summary. It conveys concrete contents (sourcePath absolute paths, severity counts) that distinguish it from simpler sibling tools like list_projects, though it never names an alternative.

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 when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives are provided. The reader must infer that this tool is for inspecting a project's structure and health; it does not say when list_projects or other sibling tools would be preferred.

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