cloud_projs_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool expects numeric ID (not name) and describes fallback behavior for missing ID. However, it does not specify return format or confirm read-only nature, leaving some 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 compact: purpose sentence, arg list with one-liners, and a crucial note. No redundant text, and the key usage guidance is prominent. Every element earns its place.

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 description is complete for input handling but lacking output information. No output schema exists, and the description does not detail what 'detailed information' comprises (fields, structure). This leaves the agent uncertain about the return value, a notable gap.

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 0%, so the description adds value: it explains extra_headers, extra_query, extra_body, timeout purposes briefly. For project_id, it adds 'numeric' beyond the integer type. This adequately fills gaps in the bare schema.

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 detailed information about a specific project', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cloud_projs_ls (list) and cloud_projs_del (delete) by focusing on a single project retrieval.

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 note explicitly guides when to use this tool: requires numeric project_id, but if given a name, resolve via cloud.projects.list/get, and if nothing, fetch default project. This provides clear alternatives and context for invocation.

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