get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: the response is limited to 'allowlisted details' and the operation returns exactly one project. However, it does not clarify what 'allowlisted' means or how it is determined.

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 one tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and noun, then immediately specifies the lookup key ('by project ID') and the scoping trait ('allowlisted details'). 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is that 'allowlisted details' is left unexplained, but given the output schema likely defines the exact fields, this is a minor omission. An agent can successfully invoke the tool with the information provided.

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?

The schema has 0% coverageaint of the parameter description, so the description must compensate. It does state the operation is 'by project ID', which clarifies the parameter's role, but it adds no new meaning beyond the schema's 'project_id' title and type. It lacks format guidance, examples, or source of the ID, so it only partially compensates 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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('one OSIRIS project'), and a clear retrieval mode ('by project ID'). It also adds a distinguishing detail ('allowlisted details') that separates it from sibling tools like search_projects. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description clearly implies the tool is for fetching a single, known project by ID, which gives an agent a solid context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use search_projects when you do not have an ID', so it falls short of a 5.

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