kaiten_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' conveys a read operation and implies no mutation, but the description does not disclose response scope, permission requirements, or whether the result is minimal by default. It provides core behavior but little extra context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying what the tool does.

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 getter with two parameters, the description plus schema is broadly sufficient, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what fields the returned project contains or the default behavior of with_cards_data, leaving some ambiguity about the response.

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%, with project_id and with_cards_data both described. The tool description itself adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the clear resource 'Kaiten project' and the identifying mechanism 'by ID.' This cleanly distinguishes the tool from sibling listing operations like kaiten_list_projects and other getter tools.

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 the tool is for fetching a single project when its ID is known, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over kaiten_list_projects or kaiten_update_project. There is no exclusion or alternative guidance beyond the 'by ID' phrasing.

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