workana_ver_proyecto

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only a catalog of returned fields and no behavioral context such as rate limits, auth requirements, or whether missing projects error out.

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 leads with the core purpose and then enumerates contents without filler. It is appropriately sized, though the long field inventory borders on restating the output schema.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the annotations cover the safety profile, so it is largely complete for a read-only viewer. The enumeration of returned fields is somewhat redundant with the output schema, but nothing critical is missing.

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%: the schema already documents 'proyecto' as a URL or slug and 'formato' as markdown/json. The description adds no syntax, format, or default guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (ver/ficha completa de un proyecto) and enumerates exactly what the record contains (descripción, skills, presupuesto, propuestas, freelancers, datos del cliente). It is immediately clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from siblings like workana_evaluar_proyecto or workana_buscar_proyectos.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. It does not tell the agent to prefer workana_evaluar_proyecto for scoring or workana_buscar_proyectos for discovery, leaving the choice entirely to inference.

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