lbm_get_project

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by detailing the returned fields (id, name, description, status, models, prompts array, schedule, stats), which annotations do not cover. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences with clear structuring: WHEN TO USE, REQUIRES, RETURNS. Every part earns its place, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose.

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?

Given the simple input (one required param) and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, and return structure. It is complete for selection and invocation.

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 describes project_id as 'Project ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds that the ID comes from lbm_list_projects, which provides useful sourcing context beyond the schema.

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 'To get full details of a specific brand monitoring project including all prompts'. The verb 'get' and resource 'project' are specific, and the scope ('full details, all prompts') distinguishes it from sibling tools like lbm_list_projects.

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 includes 'WHEN TO USE' and 'REQUIRES: project_id from lbm_list_projects', providing clear context and prerequisite. No explicit when-not-to-use is given, but the indication is sufficient.

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