redmineflux_core_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 of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no changes are made, nor does it mention permissions, error conditions, or other side effects. It does add useful context about the include parameter, but overall behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 compact and front-loaded: one clear sentence for the purpose, followed by a concise list of the two arguments. Every sentence earns its place; 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 retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is adequate: it covers both parameters fully and the output schema covers return values. However, it lacks any mention of usage alternatives, permission requirements, or potential error scenarios, which leaves minor gaps in context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's bare property definitions. It does so effectively: project_id is explained as 'Numeric ID or string identifier (e.g. "my-project")', and include is listed with its allowed values ('trackers, issue_categories, enabled_modules, time_entry_activities'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 begins with 'Get details of a specific project by ID or identifier', which clearly states the action (get details), the resource (project), and the scope (specific project). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects and get_issue, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 used when you need a single project's details, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives such as redmineflux_core_list_projects, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. Usage context is present but only implied by the purpose statement.

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