Get QA Touch project detail

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' clearly indicates a read operation, and the description lists what data is returned. However, it does not disclose response shape, error behavior, permissions, or whether any non-obvious side effects exist, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, and key output contents with no wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read operation, and the description adequately conveys the purpose and included counts. The lack of an output schema or explicit usage guidance is a minor gap, but the schema note 'from list_projects' helps the agent know how to obtain the key.

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%: projectKey is documented as 'Project key (from list_projects)', which is sufficient guidance. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the high schema coverage sets the baseline at 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 specifies a clear verb and resource: 'Get a single project's detail' and enumerates the included counts (test case, test run, defect, milestone release counts). This distinguishes it from list_projects (multiple projects) and create_project (mutation) without ambiguity.

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 word 'single' implies this is for fetching one project rather than listing all, and the parameter description references list_projects as the source of the key. However, the description itself does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_projects, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions.

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