Runn: 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 the HTTP GET method, which signals a safe, read-only operation. However, it does not elaborate on response format, error behaviors, or authentication requirements, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, focused sentence that directly states the operation and the endpoint. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter GET tool, the description is adequately complete. It mentions the resource and how to identify it, and the lack of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. It does not add context about when to use it vs. alternatives, but the simplicity of the operation makes that less critical.

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 input schema already describes projectId as 'Runn project ID' with 100% coverage. The description only refers to 'by ID' without adding further semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool fetches a single project by ID, using the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifying the resource as 'single project'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like runn_list_projects and runn_update_project.

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 provides clear context: use this when you have a project ID and need that specific project. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the singular 'by ID' implies the usage scenario and differentiates it from list operations.

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