air_get_project

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a safe lookup. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., error handling, what happens if not found, idempotency). It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction, but adds minimal value beyond them.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Every word is necessary and informative. Excellent conciseness.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the two resolution patterns but lacks details on return format, conflict handling (if both pid and slugs provided), or error conditions. Adequate for basic understanding but leaves gaps.

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 only 25% (only projectPid has a description). The description adds clarity by explaining the two usage paths (pid vs. slugs), but does not describe each parameter's role or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Partial compensation for low 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 verb 'resolve' and resource 'project', and specifies two resolution modes (by pid or by slugs). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like air_list_projects by mentioning the pid source. However, the term 'resolve' could be more explicit (e.g., fetch details).

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 explicitly tells when to use: when you have a pid from air_list_projects or a combination of orgSlug/domainSlug/projectSlug. It implies not to use without these identifiers. However, it does not mention when not to use alternatives or provide exclusion criteria for sibling tools.

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