get_project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Get complete project details' implies a read operation, but it does not disclose side-effect-freeness, authorization requirements, potential errors, or what 'complete' entails. This is thin for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 with no filler, and the core action and resource are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity, though 'complete' is slightly vague and could be more specific.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, it lacks explicit behavioral and usage context, such as how projectId is used, what 'complete details' includes, and how it differs from list_all_projects.

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%; the projectId parameter is documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but since the schema already covers the single parameter, the 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 a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('project'), and the word 'complete' signals it returns full details for a single project. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like list_all_projects, though it does not state the unique retrieval-by-ID behavior explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_all_projects is for enumerating projects, nor does it explain that this tool is for fetching one project's details. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling names.

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