project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior, but it only states 'Get one registered project by id.' It does not describe what happens when the projectId does not exist, whether 'registered' excludes certain projects, what fields the response contains, or any error behavior. For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is a notable transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler: 'Get one registered project by id.' Every word contributes to conveying the action, object, and scoping. This is an excellent example of concise, well-structured tool documentation.

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 get-by-id tool with one required parameter, the description is enough to invoke the tool, but the absence of an output schema and behavioral details leaves gaps about the return format and error handling. An agent would need to make assumptions about what 'project info' contains and how failures are signaled. It is a minimal viable description rather than a fully complete one.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does tie the single projectId parameter to the resource by saying 'by id,' and the schema already provides type, format, and pattern constraints. With only one self-explanatory parameter, this minimal linkage is adequate, though it could explicitly confirm that projectId refers to the registered project identifier.

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 ('Get'), names the resource ('project'), and scopes it with 'one ... by id', which clearly differentiates it from the sibling project_list tool that presumably returns multiple projects. An agent can immediately understand this is a single-record lookup, not a listing or mutation operation.

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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative siblings such as project_list or project_register. The phrase 'by id' implies a use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing directions provided, leaving the agent to infer the intended context.

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