Get Project ID

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior of retrieving both current project ID and recent history, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or what 'recent project history' specifically includes (e.g., time range, format).

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the current Google Cloud project ID') and adds valuable context ('and recent project history'). Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is reasonably complete for a simple utility tool. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., JSON structure of 'recent project history'), error conditions, or dependencies, which could help an agent use it more effectively.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary parameter details.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current Google Cloud project ID and recent project history'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gcp-utils-set-project-id' by specifying retrieval rather than modification, and from billing tools by focusing on project identification rather than cost analysis.

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 context for obtaining project identification and history, which is clear for this utility function. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'gcp-billing-get-project-info' or provide exclusion criteria, though the tool name 'utils' suggests general utility.

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