Show Project Type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a JSON object and specifies the endpoint. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, rate limits) are disclosed; the annotations carry the safety profile.

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?

Description is concise (5 sentences) but slightly redundant with repeated 'Company Settings.' It front-loads the purpose and includes essential API details. Could be more streamlined.

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 simple nature of the tool (show single resource) and annotations covering safety, the description provides adequate context: response type and endpoint. However, it does not clarify the presence of pagination parameters, nor the structure of the returned JSON, which is a gap without an output schema.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with adequate descriptions. The description reiterates required parameters and adds endpoint context but does not explain why 'page' and 'per_page' exist for a single-resource show endpoint. Baseline 3 due to high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool shows detail on a specific Project Type and distinguishes from sibling show_* tools by specifying 'Company Settings' and endpoint path including 'project_types'. It's specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description states when to use: 'fetch the full details of a specific Company Settings by its identifier.' It provides context about the API endpoint and required parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, though the sibling context implies differentiation.

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