get_from_project

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent. The description adds the behavioral constraint that empty arrays are not allowed, which is useful. However, it does not explain the error behavior or return format, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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 very concise, using a single sentence to convey the core purpose and a key constraint. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing brevity.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 required params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and the empty array constraint, but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or usage examples. It is functional but not thorough.

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%, with both parameters well-described in the schema. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what is in the schema; it only repeats the constraint. According to the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, so this score 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 clearly states the tool gets records by IDs, which is a specific verb+resource. It also highlights the constraint that empty arrays are not allowed. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_from_project_where or query_project, which could lead to confusion about when to use this exact tool.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description offers no context about prerequisites, limitations, or when it is preferable to use get_from_project over similar retrieval tools such as get_from_project_where or query_project.

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