Get project detail

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

The description states it is read-only and backed by specific GET endpoints, which is sufficient for a read operation. However, it does not mention potential error conditions or authentication requirements, though these may be inferred from the read-only nature.

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 concise and well-structured, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by clear usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only), the description covers purpose, usage, return fields, and provides follow-up actions. It is complete for an AI agent to understand when and how to use it.

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?

The description enhances the schema by explaining that the projectId is a PDA pubkey (base58) and indicating it comes from list_projects or create_project, providing practical context for obtaining the parameter value.

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 full detail for one project, listing specific fields (goal, raised amount, status, deadline, milestones, vote counts). It distinguishes itself from siblings that perform other actions like contribute, vote, or create projects.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before deciding to contribute or vote' and provides guidance to fetch the repository if a repoUrl exists and to vet the creator via get_agent_profile, offering clear context on when and how to use the tool.

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