retrieve_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves a project, which is a high-level behavior, but it does not disclose what happens if the UUID is not found, any authentication requirements, or whether the operation is read-only. The output schema exists, but the description itself adds minimal transparency beyond the action.

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 front-loads the purpose. It contains no redundant words or fluff, making it optimally concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks contextual depth. It does not mention how this tool relates to sibling project/issue retrieval tools, when it should be preferred, or any edge cases. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent in varied contexts.

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 has zero description coverage, listing only 'project_id' as a string. The description compensates by indicating that the parameter is a UUID, which adds meaningful semantic context. However, it does not provide additional detail such as format validation or examples, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 identifies the tool's function: 'Recupera um projeto pelo UUID' (Retrieves a project by UUID), naming a specific verb and resource. It is easy to understand what the tool does, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_projects or retrieve_issue, so it loses a point.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects or get_issue_by_identifier, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making information.

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