Show Project File

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds valuable context: it returns a single JSON object, is read-only (changes nothing), and details failure modes including common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). This goes beyond what annotations provide and gives the agent actionable expectations.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the main purpose and usage. Each sentence provides distinct value (purpose, usage, return, safety, errors, required params, endpoint). It is slightly long but every element 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 read-only show operation, the description covers purpose, when to use, prerequisites, return type, and error behavior. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the note that it returns a JSON object. It is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful hint that 'id must identify an existing parent record — resolve it with the matching list tool first,' which clarifies the id semantics beyond the schema. However, it doesn't add significant detail for show_latest_version_only, but the schema already describes it fully.

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 'Show detailed information about a File' and further specifies 'Use this when you already know which project file you want and need its full field set.' This distinguishes it from list operations and sibling tools like show_project_file_version, and the reference to resolving id with the matching list tool clarifies its role.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use when you already know the target file and need full fields, and resolve the id with the matching list tool first. This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives, though it does not explicitly list exclusion cases, the context is sufficient.

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