get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not add context about error handling, permissions, or return format. It is consistent with the tool's purpose but not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the complete purpose without any filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easily scannable.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema is sufficient to understand how to invoke it. It lacks additional context about what the response contains or potential error cases, but these are not critical for a basic get operation alongside the sibling toolset.

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 input schema provides full coverage of the single parameter (project_id as string 'Project UUID'), so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Per guidelines, a high schema coverage baseline of 3 applies; the description does not exceed this.

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 'Get a project by ID' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project') with the identifier ('ID'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_projects, create_project, and update_project. It immediately communicates the tool's core function and scope.

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 implies usage: use this tool to fetch a single project when you have its ID. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives (e.g., list_projects to get all projects) or any exclusions. This is adequate for a simple CRUD operation but lacks explicit context.

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