get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', but it does not disclose output format, performance implications, error behavior, or whether any side effects or prerequisites exist.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately identifies the tool's purpose and then lists the specific information categories. There is no wasted wording or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 tool is simple (one parameter) and the schema fully documents that parameter, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description lists what information is returned but does not explain return structure, failure modes, or when to prefer specialized siblings, leaving some gaps.

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%: the only parameter, 'name', is described as 'Project directory name'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('one project') and enumerates the information domains: stack, deps, git, deployment, revenue readiness, LOC. This is clear and distinct from list_projects or search_projects, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like git_overview, revenue_scan, outdated_deps, or deployment_map. The description implies it is for a comprehensive single-project overview, but it does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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