get_project

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that this is a read-only retrieval operation and that it returns the full project object or NOT_FOUND. Could be more explicit about idempotency and lack of side effects, but sufficient for a simple get.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by parameter usage and error behavior. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool, the description covers the action, parameter constraints, return value (full project object), and error case. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the return.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds the crucial semantic constraint that exactly one parameter must be provided, with examples for project_identifier. This clarifies mutual exclusivity beyond the schema definitions.

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 'Retrieve a single Kanboard project', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_projects, create_project, and get_task.

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?

Explicitly states that exactly one of project_id, project_identifier, or project_name must be provided. It also notes the NOT_FOUND return behavior. Lacks explicit mention of when not to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects.

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