Get project contents

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds some value by enumerating the scope of data returned (characters, generations, media, scenes, clips, agent instructions, defaults), which tells the agent what to expect in the response. It does not, however, disclose any further behavioral traits such as error handling or access prerequisites.

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, compact phrase with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main categories of returned data. However, as a sentence fragment it is slightly less structured than a complete sentence would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the kinds of data the project contains, compensating for the missing return value documentation. The readOnlyHint annotation covers safety, and the schema fully covers the parameter. The definition is nearly complete for a simple read-only getter, though it could mention error cases or format.

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?

There is one parameter (project_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no information about the parameter beyond what is already in the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 is a noun phrase listing contents ('Characters, generations and media, scenes with their clips, agent instructions and generation defaults') rather than a verb-led statement of what the tool does. The name and title supply the verb, but the description alone does not clearly state the action and does not differentiate from siblings like flow_list_projects or flow_get_media.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also retrieve project-related data, the description provides no selection criteria or context for invocation.

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