get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get details,' which implies a read-only operation, but does not mention error cases (e.g., not found), authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure with notable gaps.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains zero superfluous words.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. With one parameter fully documented in the schema and a simple retrieval operation, the description is largely complete. It could add edge-case handling, but for such a straightforward tool it is adequate.

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%: the only parameter, project_id, has a clear description in the schema ('ID of the project to retrieve'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get details about a specific project' uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('project'), clearly indicating a single-item retrieval. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tool list_projects by emphasizing 'specific' rather than a collection, even without naming alternatives.

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 usage context: use this tool when you need a single project's details, especially compared to list_projects. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection.

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