Get a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context by listing what 'full' includes, but does not disclose other behaviors such as error handling, pagination, or authorization requirements. 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 a single, front-loaded line that conveys the essential purpose and payload. No filler or redundancy; every word adds value.

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-only get-by-ID tool with two well-documented parameters, the description sufficiently communicates the expected response scope. It does not mention error cases, but given the simplicity and lack of an output schema, it is complete enough.

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 coverage is 100% for both project_id and workspace_id, with descriptions provided. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameters themselves; it only lists what the response contains, which is not parameter-specific. 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 identifies the tool as returning a single project with specific components (client, estimates, memberships, hourly rate). It distinguishes from list/find siblings by emphasizing 'one project in full', though it lacks an explicit verb in the description itself; the title provides the verb.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects or find_project. The phrase 'in full' implies a need for complete project details, but there is no direct comparison or mention of alternate tools.

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