read_project

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'list details' and 'recent projects'. It does not explain pagination or the relationship between parameters (e.g., id vs start/end). The description adds minimal value beyond annotations.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 description does not mention output format, the relationship between projectId and start/end parameters, or that the tool can fetch a set of projects. Given an output schema exists but is not shown, the description is incomplete for a read tool with multiple modes.

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% (description does not mention parameters), but the input schema itself provides clear descriptions for projectId, start, and end. The tool description fails to add any meaning beyond the schema, which given low coverage should compensate but does not.

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 clearly states the tool lists project details, distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_projects' (likely project summaries) and 'read_project_collaborators'. The verb 'list' and resource 'project details' are specific.

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 implies usage for reading a single project by ID or a range of recent projects, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_projects' or provide exclusions. No explicit guidance on when not to use.

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