project_get

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

Describes the tool as a 'Live API call', indicating real-time authoritative data, and clearly states it 'returns no keys', which is a key behavioral trait. No annotations exist, so the description fully covers transparency.

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 sentences, no fluff: first sentence specifies outputs, second sentence adds behavioral constraints and alternatives. Every word earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the main fields returned (name, owning org, tier, etc.) and clarifies what is not returned (keys), making it complete for an AI to understand the tool's output.

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 coverage is 100% with a parameter description that mirrors the main description. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the single parameter.

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 tool is an 'Authoritative server read of a project' and lists specific fields returned, differentiating it from siblings like list_projects (summary view) and project_key_cache_status (keys).

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?

Explicitly notes that it 'returns no keys' and directs to alternative tools (project_key_cache_status/export) when keys are needed, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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