speckle_project_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'Get' which implies read-only, but does not explicitly confirm no side effects, mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. It adds some context by listing what data is returned (models, team members), but the lack of explicit read-only declaration and any operational constraints is a gap.

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 is front-loaded with the primary action ('Get detailed information') and specifies key output aspects. Every word is useful, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read tool with one required parameter and an existing output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It identifies the purpose and the significant content of the result. It does not explain how to retrieve the project_id (e.g., via speckle_projects_list), but that is a usage guideline concern rather than a completeness issue for the tool itself.

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 schema has no parameter description (0% coverage), and the description does not compensate by explaining the project_id parameter's meaning or how to obtain it. The parameter name 'project_id' is self-explanatory to some extent, but the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema itself.

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's function: retrieving detailed information about a Speckle project. It specifically mentions the content of that detail (models and team members), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like speckle_projects_list (list of projects) and speckle_project_create (creation). The verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a Speckle project' make the purpose explicit.

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: when you need detailed project details including models and team members. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives (e.g., speckle_projects_list) or state when not to use it. There is no explicit exclusion, but the guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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