redmine_project_get

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

With no annotations present, the description bears the full burden. It discloses the HTTP GET method, implying a read-only operation with no destructive side effects. However, it omits authentication requirements, error behavior, and response format details, so transparency is only partially provided.

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 with the core action and endpoint, and contains no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple retrieval operation, though it trades explanatory depth for brevity.

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 low-complexity GET endpoint, the basic action is clear, but the absence of annotations and output schema leaves the optional include parameter and the expected return value undocumented. An agent could invoke it from the schema alone, but the description alone would not fully explain behavior or results.

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 50%, and the description adds little beyond the schema: it repeats ':id' in the endpoint but does not explain the include array. The enum values in the schema carry most of the meaning for include, not the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project') plus the REST endpoint, making the action unmistakable. It clearly contrasts with sibling list/create/update/delete project tools, even though it does not explicitly name them.

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 usage is implied: 'Get project' and the '/projects/:id.json' endpoint indicate this retrieves a single project by id/identifier. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided, so an agent must infer when to choose this over redmine_projects_list or other project tools.

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