Zephyr: Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as error behavior, identifier precedence, or access requirements; the examples and 'Expected Output' lines mostly restate the obvious.

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 main sentence is front-loaded and the structure separates toolset, parameter, and examples clearly. It is slightly padded by the repeated 'Expected Output: The project with its details' lines, but remains compact for a one-parameter lookup.

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 only one required parameter, a full input schema, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the definition provides enough to invoke the tool correctly. It could be more complete by pointing to zephyr_get_projects for when no single identifier is known, but that gap is minor and covered under usage guidance.

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 input schema already describes projectIdOrKey and provides a validation pattern, so description-level parameter explanation is not necessary. The two examples ('1' and 'PROJ') illustrate the accepted formats but add little meaning beyond the schema's pattern and property description.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Get details of project specified by id or key in Zephyr.' It unambiguously targets a single project and names the identifying input, but it does not explicitly contrast with the plural sibling zephyr_get_projects, so it stops short of full sibling 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 'specified by id or key' implies the tool is for looking up one project when an identifier is already known. It does not state exclusions or name alternatives such as zephyr_get_projects for listing projects, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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