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 behavior. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens if the project is not found.

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 sentence that immediately states the operation and scope without any filler. It is efficiently written and easy to parse.

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?

With one parameter, an output schema, and a simple read-only retrieval, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and context. The sibling tools provide sufficient contrast, and the description is complete for this simple tool.

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 already fully describes the projectId parameter with an example. The description adds 'by its ID' which reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not introduce new semantic detail 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 the tool retrieves full details for a single project by ID. The verb 'Get' and resource 'project' are specific, and the scope 'single project by its ID' distinguishes it from search_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 provides a clear usage context: use this tool when you have a project ID and need full details. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_projects for finding projects without an ID.

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