get_project

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, signaling a safe, read-only operation. The description adds minimal value beyond stating 'single entry'; it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as behavior when no project exists or response format.

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 front-loads the key information. It is not verbose and earns its place without filler. A slightly longer description could improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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 zero parameters and annotations providing safety guarantees, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not explain what 'project metadata' includes, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name or sibling tools. An output schema would help, but it is absent.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add semantics. Schema coverage is 100% trivially, meeting the baseline of 3; the description adds no new parameter information but is not required to.

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 project metadata (single entry)' clearly specifies the verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project_fields or get_project_schema. It indicates that this tool retrieves the entire project metadata as a single record, which is unique among siblings.

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 alternative sibling tools that retrieve specific subsets of project data (e.g., get_project_fields, get_project_json_parameters). There is no mention of prerequisites or context that would help the agent choose correctly.

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