get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Show' implies a non-destructive read operation and the list of returned content adds some context, but it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., unknown project identifier), authentication needs, or explicitly confirm no side effects.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The only redundancy is the Args line, which repeats schema information without adding value, but it does not make the description excessively long.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are covered externally. The description usefully names the project aspects returned, and for a one-parameter read-only tool it is largely sufficient, though it omits identifier provenance and error scenarios.

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 0%, and the description's Args section merely restates the parameter name ('project_identifier: project identifier'). This adds no meaningful semantic detail: it does not explain the expected format, whether it is a numeric ID or slug, or how to obtain the identifier.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Show', identifies the resource as 'a project's details', and lists concrete content areas (description, enabled modules, trackers, categories). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects, create_project, update_project, and archive_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 this is for retrieving a single project by identifier, as opposed to listing or modifying projects, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like list_projects. There are no exclusions or prerequisite guidance.

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