planka_read_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only states 'Get a project' without disclosing side effects, return format, error behavior, or permission requirements. The read-only nature is implied but not stated, and nothing beyond the obvious is added.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it is under-specified, which reduces its effectiveness despite its brevity.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is extremely minimal. It fails to explain what the response contains, possible errors, or any contextual details that would help an agent use it correctly. Given the simplicity of the tool, more information is expected.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the 'id' parameter. The description mentions 'by id' but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema property name; it doesn't clarify the format, source, or what constitutes a valid id.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('project') with an identifier ('by id'), which distinguishes it from the plural sibling 'planka_read_projects'. However, it is terse and doesn't explicitly contrast with other read tools, so it's clear but not highly differentiated.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'planka_read_projects' or other read tools. The singular 'by id' implies a specific use case, but there is no explicit context or exclusion criteria.

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