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 safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, error behavior, or auth requirements, but it does not contradict annotations. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple get-by-ID tool and front-loads the core action and target.

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's simplicity, the strong annotations, and the fully documented schema, the description is sufficient. It does not explain return details, but no output schema exists and the purpose is obvious for a get tool. Slightly more could be added about expected output, but it is not necessary.

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% for the single 'id' parameter, which is documented as 'Project UUID'. The description's 'by ID' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 'Get details of a specific project by ID' uses a specific verb ('get') and clearly identifies the resource ('project') with a distinguishing qualifier ('specific project by ID'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like yougile_list_projects (which lists all projects) and mutation tools like yougile_create_project/yougile_update_project.

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 'by ID' implies the tool is intended when the agent already knows the project's UUID, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over list_projects or provide any exclusions/alternatives. Usage is implied rather than clearly stated.

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