Get project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes beyond them by enumerating the returned payload (paths, text/binary flags, IDs, counts, share links, membership) — valuable because there is no output schema. It does not warn about payload size for projects with many files.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and scope first, followed by a dense but purposeful content list. No filler; could be marginally easier to scan if the return list were separated from scope.

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?

Without an output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the response contents. Gaps are minor: no mention of how large responses behave or pointers to sibling tools for narrower reads.

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 100%, so project_id (with a format example) and response_format (enum) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing param-specific beyond implying a single project, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Show') plus resource ('one project') with an enumeration of what is returned (files, main file, compiler pin, comment counts, share links, members, invitations). The singular scope distinguishes it from typst_list_projects without naming it explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling named. Usage is only implied: 'Show one project' suggests calling it when you already have an ID and need full detail rather than a listing.

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