n8n_get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates the licensing requirement (Enterprise/Pro), which is essential behavioral context. However, it fails to describe the read-only nature explicitly, potential error conditions, or what constitutes 'project details' in the response.

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 relatively short (two sentences), but contains metadata noise ('[UNIFIED] [Enterprise]') that reduces clarity without adding semantic value. The core content is efficiently structured, but the prefix tags waste valuable context window space.

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 absence of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides minimum viable information by documenting the licensing constraint. However, it falls short of completeness by failing to document the 'site' parameter or provide any indication of the response structure, which is particularly important since no output schema exists.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only partially compensates. While 'by ID' implies the purpose of the 'project_id' parameter, the 'site' parameter is completely undocumented in both schema and description. With two required parameters and no schema documentation, the description should have defined both parameters explicitly.

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 'Get project details by ID', providing a specific verb and resource. The 'by ID' qualifier effectively distinguishes this from sibling tools like n8n_list_projects, n8n_create_project, and n8n_update_project. However, it doesn't specify what 'details' includes, leaving some ambiguity about the return value.

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 provides the critical prerequisite 'Requires n8n Enterprise/Pro license', which constrains when the tool can be used. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus n8n_list_projects (e.g., 'use when you have a specific project ID vs. when you need to browse all projects').

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