get_project

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

The description declares 'This is read-only,' which matches the readOnlyHint annotation and adds clarity. It also mentions 'full project fields or links,' indicating the output includes complete data. No behavioral traits are hidden, and there is 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?

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and provide essential usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or wordiness.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the operation and when to use it. However, it could be more specific about the return format (e.g., 'returns a project object with all fields'). Lacks detail on error handling or missing IDs, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 single required parameter 'idOrIdentifier' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with the same wording. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states 'Get one complete project by numeric ID or identifier', specifying the verb (get), resource (project), and scope (one, complete). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like list_projects and create_project, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'Use when the target is already known and full project fields or links are needed; use list_projects for discovery.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and provides a direct alternative (list_projects).

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