get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds value by specifying exactly what data is returned (schema, functions, etc.), which annotations don't cover. No contradictions.

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 sentence that efficiently lists what information is retrieved. No filler words. It is front-loaded with the core action 'Get project details'.

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 tool has one parameter, high schema coverage, and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns. However, it could mention that the output may include multiple entities (e.g., functions, schema) and confirm it returns the entire project object.

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 schema already defines the parameter well. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter's description, warranting a baseline 3.

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 the tool retrieves project details and lists specific resources: slug, visibility, status, deployed functions, and database schema. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_projects' (which lists all projects) by focusing on a single project's detailed info.

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 when you need detailed project info, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Since 'list_projects' exists for listing, using 'get_project' for listing would be inefficient. No guidance on prerequisites like project_id validity.

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