Get Project

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval with no side effects. However, it does not disclose what happens on a missing/invalid ID, whether the call requires authentication or specific scopes, or how costly the 'include' expansion is. It adds the notion of 'full details' but no real behavioral context.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action and the optional expansion front-loaded in order of importance. Every clause earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the optional expansion. It could say a bit more about the shape/scope of 'full details' and failure behavior, but nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the same example include values ('company,project_manager,workflow'). The description's mention of related resources duplicates rather than extends the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Productive.io project) and scopes it to a single record fetched by ID, which implicitly separates it from productive_list_projects and the create/update siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or drawing the contrast explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally 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?

Usage is implied: fetch one project when you already have its ID. There is no explicit when-to-use vs productive_list_projects, no statement of prerequisites, and no guidance on when the 'include' expansion is worth requesting. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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