get_project

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

The description mentions return value and error behavior, but contradicts the input schema by requiring parameters that schema does not define. This inconsistency undermines transparency. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, but fails to disclose that the tool is read-only or any other traits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with essential info. Every sentence adds value: action, parameter instructions, and error behavior. No wasted words.

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 is simple (retrieve a single project) and the description provides return and error info, but the critical mismatch between described parameters and schema leaves the agent unable to correctly invoke the tool. The absence of output schema is acceptable, but the contradiction creates incompleteness.

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 description adds helpful semantics about three optional parameters (project_id, project_identifier, project_name) with constraints, but these are not reflected in the input schema (which has zero properties). This contradiction means the description adds meaning that is inconsistent with the structured metadata, reducing its utility.

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 the action ('Retrieve a single Kanboard project') and distinguishes from siblings like list_projects (which retrieves all) and other CRUD tools. The verb-resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states that exactly one of three parameters must be provided, with examples of each type. It also specifies the error behavior ('Returns NOT_FOUND'). However, it does not explicitly state when 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.