Api pmbok projects retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail beyond that — related fields the caller is not authorized to see are masked in the response — which is useful for interpreting sparse results. It does not cover what happens on a missing/forbidden id or how masking is indicated.

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?

One short sentence with no padding, which is good, but brevity here is under-specification rather than efficiency: the one thing it says (object with masked fields) is not the most important thing an agent needs (which resource, keyed by what).

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?

A single-id read tool with no output schema and no nested params is simple enough that annotations plus the tool name carry much of the load, and the masking note is a real addition. Still, the description never identifies the entity returned or the id semantics, so an agent could not distinguish it from the neighboring object_retrieve/retrieve variants on the description alone.

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 0% and the single required parameter `id` has no description in the schema, so the description carries the burden — yet it never mentions the id, its expected format, or whether it is a UUID or slug. It does not compensate for the coverage gap at all.

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?

"Return a single object" states a retrieval verb but never names the resource (a PMBOK project) or what the single object is keyed by. The only distinguishing content is the masking note, so an agent must infer from the tool name alone that this returns one PMBOK project rather than, say, a cascade info or priority object.

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 statement of when to use this versus the numerous siblings (pmbok_projects_list, pmbok_projects_object_retrieve, pmbok_projects_cascade_info_retrieve). The 'unauthorized related fields masked' note hints at a permission-scoped read but gives no condition that would select this tool over another.

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