get_project

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

Description states it is a retrieval operation ('Retrieve') and specifies return includes all line items. With no annotations provided, this covers basic behavior but omits authentication needs, rate limits, or potential side effects (though unlikely).

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose and key detail about the record contents.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and basic return info. However, it lacks parameter coverage for 'coNumber' and usage context, leaving some gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It mentions retrieving by unique ID, which hints at the 'id' parameter, but the optional 'coNumber' parameter is completely undocumented. The description only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'D-Tools SI project or change order' by unique ID. While the tool name implies its purpose, the description adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_purchase_order, though the name helps.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects or other get tools. No exclusions or context for when it should or should not be used.

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