yougile_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as access requirements, error handling, or response format. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the basic function.

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 short sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-ID read operation, the description is sufficient. It clearly identifies the resource and scope. No output schema exists, but the term 'details' is functionally adequate for a get-by-ID operation, though specifying the returned fields would make it more complete.

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 coverage is 100% with the id parameter clearly described as 'Project UUID'. The description only repeats 'by ID' and adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with resource 'details of a specific project' and explicit scope 'by ID', clearly distinguishing it from list_projects (which lists all projects) and create/update variants. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description implies use when a specific project ID is known and its details are needed, but it does not mention list_projects as an alternative for retrieving multiple projects, so usage context is only implied.

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