get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('Get') with no mention of side effects, permissions, or error handling. While acceptable for a simple get, it lacks detail on what happens if the project code is invalid or missing.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded immediately, and the example is integrated efficiently. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 has no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at the return format or typical fields. It does not. For a simple get, it's minimally adequate, but agents would benefit from knowing what information is returned (e.g., project name, dates, etc.).

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%, but the description adds value by specifying the format (e.g., BDI) and providing a real-world example of extracting the code from URLs. This helps agents understand how to obtain the parameter beyond the schema's pattern constraint.

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 tool retrieves project information using a project code, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_projects which lists all projects. The specific verb 'Get a project information' and resource 'from QA Sphere' with example code 'BDI' makes purpose 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 provides clear context on when to use: when you have a project code. It also offers practical guidance on extracting the code from URLs. However, no explicit exclusions or comparison to other tools like get_test_case is provided, which would increase clarity.

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