zadig_project_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the result is 'redacted,' which is meaningful, but it does not say what gets redacted, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens when no project_key is supplied. This is partial but not complete 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?

The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, and every phrase adds useful meaning.

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?

The tool has only one parameter and an output schema, so the context burden is modest. However, the optional project_key and the meaning of 'redacted GitOps Project document' remain underspecified, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the project_key parameter at all. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation or clarify the default/null behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('one Zadig project'), and a distinctive output form ('redacted GitOps Project document'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like zadig_project_plan or zadig_project_snapshot, but the retrieval intent is clear.

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: call this tool when you need a single Zadig project as a redacted document. It offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling alternative to prefer, but for a simple get operation the intended context is reasonably inferable.

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