Get a qTest project

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals that this is a safe read operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. The description adds the scoping detail "by its numeric ID," which is useful but not a behavioral trait. It does not disclose return format, possible errors, or authentication needs, but for a simple getter with a read-only annotation, this is acceptable.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ("Fetch a single qTest project") and then specifies the key parameter ("by its numeric ID"). Every part 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 tool with one integer parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what it does and what input is required. It could optionally mention that the result is the full project object or that a missing ID would cause an error, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the parameter description "Numeric project ID" already fully defines the single parameter. The tool description repeats this by saying "by its numeric ID," adding no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 "Fetch" and clearly identifies the resource as "a single qTest project," with the qualifier "by its numeric ID." This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like qtest_list_projects (which lists multiple projects) and other get_* tools for different resource types.

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 description implies usage context: when you need one specific project and know its numeric ID. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., qtest_list_projects for listing all projects) or provide exclusions. The "single" vs. "list" contrast is implicit but not directly stated.

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