Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds value by describing the return object ('Full project object with ID, name, description, git configuration'), which supplements the annotations with concrete output context. No contradictions.

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: a single sentence for purpose, a bulleted list for parameters (three lines), and a single sentence for returns. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every sentence contributes necessary information without verbosity.

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 (get a project), the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, what parameters are accepted, and what is returned. No gaps in functionality or behavior are evident.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description largely repeats the schema but adds a 'Returns' line that provides meaningful context about the output. This extra return information justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 details of a specific Coalesce project.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project'), and among siblings like list_projects, update_project, delete_project, it uniquely identifies this tool for retrieving a single project's details.

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 to retrieve project details, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects (for listing many projects) or other get_* tools. No exclusionary or comparison language is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.

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