planview_get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' indicates a read operation and implies no destructive side effects, but it does not disclose error behavior, authorization requirements, or return format. This is acceptable for a simple read but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. Every piece of information in the description is necessary.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup tool, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. It could mention what kind of details are returned, but the low complexity and lack of an output schema make the current text adequate.

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?

Scheme coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'id' is documented as 'The project ID'. The description adds little beyond confirming the lookup is by ID, so it stays at the baseline for well-covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get details of a specific project') and explicitly scopes the call to a project by ID, distinguishing it from the sibling planview_get_projects. An agent can clearly tell this is the singular lookup tool.

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 'by ID' qualifier provides clear context: use this when you have a project ID and need a single project record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the intended use is evident.

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