dev_get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, side effects, or whether the operation is read-only. The description only restates the basic purpose.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded to include parameter clarification or usage hints without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the low complexity (one required string parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks detail on what 'details' means or what the output will contain. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for the agent.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'projectId'. The description does not explain what 'projectId' is, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The schema provides the type 'string' but no further context, placing the burden on the description which fails to add value beyond the schema.

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 action ('Get details') and the resource ('a Lamatic project'), using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like dev_list_projects (list all projects) and dev_create_project (create a new project). The purpose is immediately clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like dev_list_projects or dev_get_deployment. The implied usage is minimal.

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