tc_get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It only says 'Get details,' omitting whether the operation is idempotent, requires authentication, handles errors, or has rate limits. Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose efficiently. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no unnecessary repetition. Ideal conciseness.

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 tool has 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is basic. It says 'Get details' but doesn't indicate what is returned (e.g., project object fields). For a simple get operation, it's adequate but not thorough. Could be improved by noting return structure.

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%, with clear descriptions for region (enum with meanings) and projectId (string). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already documents parameters well.

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 'Get details of a specific project,' which is a specific verb+resource combo. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like tc_list_projects (list all) and tc_create_project (create). However, it does not explicitly differentiate, and could be more specific about what 'details' includes.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., tc_list_projects when you don't know the project ID). No mention of preconditions or context for use. The description provides no usage suggestions.

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