wisdom_get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of indicating safety and side effects. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what happens when no current project exists, an invalid UUID is provided, or whether the returned data is partial or full.

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?

One compact, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining what the tool does.

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 getter with one optional parameter, the description plus schema is adequate for basic invocation. However, there is no output schema and no mention of return shape or error cases, and the description does not point to list_projects as the alternative for enumerating projects.

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%; the schema already explains that uuid is optional and defaults to the current project. The tool description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond restating this behavior.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project'), and defines two distinct access modes: the current project or a project identified by UUID. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_projects, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 phrase 'current project or a specific project by UUID' implies the main use case, but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over list_projects, how a UUID should be obtained, or prerequisites such as having a current project configured.

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