trmnl_project_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that it returns the project, markup, sample data, and current revision for editing. It could go further about error behavior or project resolution, but the annotations lower the burden.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no wasted wording. The core action and returned artifacts are front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned reasonably well. However, it leaves the required id parameter unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for invocation correctness.

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% for the single required id parameter. The description does not explain what id refers to, whether it is a project identifier, slug, or file path, nor how it relates to the returned data. The schema provides a pattern but no semantic explanation, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read a local project. It also enumerates the returned artifacts (markup, sample data, current revision), so an agent can understand what it retrieves. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as trmnl_project_list or trmnl_read_markup, which keeps it below a 5.

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 phrase "for editing" hints at when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus trmnl_project_list, trmnl_project_save, trmnl_project_validate, or trmnl_read_markup. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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