rh11_projects_get

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds context about the content included (schedule, services, SERP data) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format, pagination, or error conditions. It adds value beyond the annotation but not richly.

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 that directly communicates the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word adds value without repetition or fluff.

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 get-by-ID tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (schedule, services, SERP data). It lacks explicit details about response format or error behavior, but given the low complexity and read-only annotation, it is sufficiently complete.

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 already documents ui_id as 'Project unique identifier' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by mentioning 'a specific Rhodium11 project', but adds no new meaning about the parameter format, source, or usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 action ('Get detailed info'), the specific resource ('a specific Rhodium11 project'), and the scope of information ('schedule, services, and SERP data'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rh11_projects_list (which likely lists projects) and rh11_projects_get_stats (which focuses on statistics).

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 retrieving details of a single project, contrasting with list or stats variants. It provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The phrase 'a specific project' signals it is for targeted lookup rather than broad listing.

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