retrieve_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context such as return format, error handling, authentication requirements, or what happens when the project does not exist. It merely restates the purpose without going beyond the annotations.

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, clear sentence of five words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 retrieve-by-ID operation with one parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate. It communicates the core function, and any missing details (e.g., exact return object) are largely inferable from the tool name and resource context, though it could mention that it returns the full 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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter details. It only says 'by ID', which aligns with the parameter name project_id but does not explain the format, source, or any constraints on the ID. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds little beyond the schema's type and required flag.

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 'Retrieve a project by ID' uses a specific verb (retrieve) and identifies the resource (project) and key (ID). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project, update_project, list_projects, and other retrieve_* 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?

Usage is implied by the naming convention: use this when you need a single project by its ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over list_projects or mention any prerequisites or alternatives, so the guidance is only implicit.

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