redmine_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, what happens on invalid IDs, or permission requirements. It does disclose the returned content scope (trackers and enabled modules), which adds value.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then adds two useful enrichment details. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 read operation with one well-documented parameter, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. There is no output schema, but the description partially indicates the return contents. It does not exhaustively describe all returned fields, but that is not necessary for this 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 project_id parameter already includes a clear description with examples. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema alone is sufficient, so 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 states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('specific Redmine project') and adds useful detail ('including trackers and enabled modules'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_get_projects (a list) and redmine_get_project_issues (a scoped query).

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 establishes clear context: it is for retrieving details of a single project rather than listing all projects. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'specific project' combined with sibling tool names implies the correct choice.

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