get_project

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context about the returned data (identity, progress, premise), but does not disclose error behavior, missing-project handling, or response structure.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's scope and then lists what the detail includes. No redundant words 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 single-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint=true, the description conveys enough to select and call it correctly. It tells the agent what kind of detail will come back, though it leaves out explicit mention of the projectId parameter and any error or not-found behavior.

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 single parameter projectId is self-explanatory from the name, and the tool name makes its role clear. However, the description itself does not mention projectId or add any meaning beyond the schema, so it doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the resource ('project') and the action ('in detail'), and specifies the returned content: what it is, progress, and story-world premise. It implicitly distinguishes from list_projects by focusing on a single project, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 phrase 'One project in detail' implies use when a single project's full details are needed rather than a list or search result. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to choose.

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