Get project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'get' — no mention of what fields are returned, 404 behavior for invalid IDs, rate limits, or performance considerations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't contradict annotations but adds minimal extra transparency.

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?

A single, direct sentence that states the action and the key discriminator (by project id). No wasted words, no fluff. It uses a clean verb-noun structure. Minor deduction for the typo and for not mentioning the safe-read nature, but the length is appropriate and front-loaded.

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-resource lookup tool with 1 required parameter, full schema coverage, and clear readOnly annotations, the description covers the essentials. It's not a complex mutation or a multi-parameter tool needing extensive behavioral context. The main gap is not describing the return structure, but no output schema exists, so some return-format detail could help. Overall adequate for its simplicity.

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% — the project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its format pattern and the note that list_projects returns valid IDs. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full burden, which it does here.

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 'Get one bisibility project by project id' clearly states it fetches a single project by ID, using the specific verb 'get' plus the resource. It's distinguishable from list_projects (plural) and create/update/delete_project siblings. Minor demerit for the odd typo 'bisibility' (likely 'visibility'), but the purpose is clear and the subject matter is specific.

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 context (fetch a single identified project) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. There's no mention of 'use list_projects to enumerate all projects first' or exclusion guidance. The pattern-validated project_id parameter gives some implicit hint, but no alternative tools or exclusions are named.

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