get_project

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by enumerating exactly what data is returned (list-status mappings, label usage, member roles, own role). It does not contradict the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations. Could mention open-world caveats, but annotations already cover safety.

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 succinct sentences that front-load the purpose and enumerate return contents. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 read-only retrieval tool with one well-documented parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, return content, and usage timing. It is contextually complete.

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 already fully describes the sole parameter project_id with a reference to list_projects. The description adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the full structure of a single project, listing specific components (lists, status mappings, labels usage, members, roles). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects (which lists projects) and get_task (task-level details).

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 instruction 'Read this before changing structure or assigning people' provides explicit timing guidance, indicating the tool should be used before mutation or assignment operations. It implies but does not explicitly name alternatives, though the context is clear.

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