getProjectDetails

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool gets information, without detailing response format, potential side effects (though read-only implied), or any contextual requirements. It does not go beyond the obvious 'get' semantics.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and key output components. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

The description offers some context by listing metadata, team, and settings, but without an output schema or annotations, it leaves uncertainty about exact response structure and potential constraints. It is minimally viable for a simple getter but could benefit from more detail.

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 covers the only parameter 'includeMetadata' with a clear description and default. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not provide any extra meaning 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about the current Dradis project', listing specific aspects (metadata, team, settings). This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like createProject and setProject.

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 implies the tool is used to retrieve project details but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus other tools (e.g., when to prefer getProjectDetails over getVulnerabilities or updateContentBlock). No exclusions or alternative tools are named.

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