get_project_readme

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It effectively discloses the auto-detection behavior for filenames and raw content return format. However, it omits error handling (what happens if no README exists?) and safety confirmation (though 'Get' implies read-only).

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 well-structured sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core action, followed by behavioral specifics (auto-detection) and utility (useful for...).

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 2-parameter tool without annotations or output schema, the description is nearly complete. It compensates for missing output schema by specifying 'raw content' return. Minor gap on error cases, but sufficient for agent selection.

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%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds domain context by specifying 'CERN GitLab project' but does not elaborate on parameter syntax or validation rules 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'README file content' and scope 'CERN GitLab project'. The auto-detection capability clearly distinguishes it from generic file retrieval siblings like get_file_content.

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?

Provides implicit usage context via 'useful for understanding what a project does', but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'use get_file_content instead for specific paths').

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