project_get

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral load. It mentions returned content (absolute file paths, sheets) but omits that this is a read-only operation, any permission requirements, side effects, or response structure beyond the listed items. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 phrase fragment that is short and front-loaded, with no verbose filler. However, its extreme brevity omits essential context, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise for a retrieval tool.

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 needs to explain what 'project' is and that it performs a read. The description lists output contents but provides no input or usage context, and with no annotations or output schema, the definition is substantially incomplete.

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 only parameter, 'project', is a required string with no schema description, and the description never mentions it. It does not explain whether 'project' is an ID, name, or path, so the description fails to compensate for 0% schema 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 is a noun phrase listing returned data (bible, anchor, references, assets, sheets) but never states the action (get/retrieve). The tool name 'project_get' supplies the verb, so an agent can infer it, but the description alone does not distinguish this from sibling tools like studio_info or project_update.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like project_create or project_update, and no prerequisites such as required project identifier format. The agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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