Get one Depot project and its trust policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable security context beyond annotations: trust-relationship tokens carry project-token permissions and cannot reach the Depot CI API or Depot API, only container builds and the registry. No contradiction with 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 structured with a front-loaded purpose sentence, followed by use cases and a security note. Each paragraph adds distinct information, though it is slightly longer than a purely minimal definition.

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 read-only single-resource tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, use cases, and authentication semantics. Nothing needed to select and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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% and the single projectId parameter is already documented as coming from depot_list_projects. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it does not need to compensate; baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Show one Depot container build project's full configuration together with its OIDC trust policies.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/diagnostic tools by narrowing scope to a single project and its trust policies.

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 explicit use cases: 'check build capacity and cache retention for a specific project' and 'audit which external CI systems are allowed to exchange an OIDC token for Depot credentials.' It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the 'specific project' framing makes the boundary clear.

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