get_project

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

No annotations are available, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention error behavior, permissions, or what 'full details' encompasses. The existence of an output schema covers return structure, but additional side-effect context is absent.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action, resource, and key parameter constraint.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks any mention of how this tool differs from find_project, which is a minor completeness gap given the sibling context.

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 only defines project_id as a string, with no description. The tool description adds the critical semantic that this parameter is a UUID, providing meaning beyond the schema. This compensates for the 0% schema description 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'), the resource ('project'), and the scope ('single project by its UUID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects (plural) and find_project (which may imply search behavior).

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 use when you have a UUID and need detailed project info, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives like find_project or list_projects. No clear guidance on when not to use this tool is provided.

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