Get Project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns project metadata and the kinds of fields included, which is useful. However, it does not state error behavior (e.g., invalid ID), authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a read operation, this is minimally viable but lacks depth beyond the obvious 'get' semantics.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no redundant information. Every word contributes to explaining purpose or return value.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description explains the purpose and partially lists the return fields, using 'including' to indicate a non-exhaustive list. While it does not enumerate every possible metadata field or error conditions, it is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope. Given the lack of an output schema, the description does a decent job of setting expectations.

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 the 'project_id' parameter described as 'The project ID'. The description adds no new semantic detail about the parameter, though it reinforces that the ID identifies the project. Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no compensation is needed.

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 the action ('Get details') and the resource ('specific project') with an explicit identifier ('by its ID'). It also lists the return content (name, color, view mode, permissions), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_projects which retrieves multiple projects.

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 for retrieving a single project when you have the project ID, which provides clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using get_projects for a list of projects. The clarity of 'specific project by ID' gives enough guidance for an agent to select this tool over similar ones.

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