anon_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: authorization rules, the super-admin myRole value (「超级管理员」), and the fact that the target project is implicitly resolved. It stops short of describing the returned payload beyond that one field.

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?

Short and front-loaded: purpose first, then access rules, then the implicit-parameter note. The embedded 'GET /api/projects/{id}' restates the route and is mildly redundant, but it is brief and does no real harm.

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 no-param, read-only detail endpoint with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: what it returns in general, who can call it, and how the target is determined. Only the shape of the returned project object is left unspecified.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description actually earns it by explaining the missing projectId is deliberate — the project comes from the current API key — which resolves why the schema is empty rather than leaving it unexplained.

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+resource (获取项目详情) and is the only project-detail getter among a large sibling set dominated by stage/todo/material/finance operations. It also preempts the biggest ambiguity by noting the project is derived from the API key, so an agent knows this needs no identifier.

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?

Gives a concrete access precondition (project members or super admins), which is genuinely useful guidance. However, it never states when to prefer this over related reads like anon_get_open_me or the mutation sibling anon_patch_project, so usage is only implied.

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