Get a Vercel project

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive). It does not mention auth, error behavior, or response characteristics, so it fails to add value over the rich annotation set.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the exact purpose without any fluff. It earns its place and is immediately scannable.

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?

The tool is extremely simple with one parameter and a rich output schema plus strong annotations. The description, while terse, is sufficient for an agent to understand the operation given the structured context; no additional details are necessary.

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%, with 'idOrName' already documented as 'Project ID or project name'. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 fetches one project by ID or name, which is a specific verb+resource scope. It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling list_projects by emphasizing 'one project'.

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 know the project ID/name, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it compares to list_projects. No alternative tools are named, so guidance is only implicit and minimal.

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