get_project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavior. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation and 'including its status and dates' hints at response contents, but it does not disclose error behavior, exact return shape, or the effect of include_extra. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 one well-formed sentence that places the core purpose first and omits filler. Every phrase ('single', 'by id', 'status and dates') adds relevant information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description plus schema gives an agent enough to call it correctly. It lacks an explicit return structure, but no output schema exists and the inclusion of 'status and dates' supplies a reasonable expectation of the result.

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%, so the schema already fully documents both project_id and include_extra. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('project'), and selection criterion ('by id'), and narrows the result contents to 'status and dates.' This clearly distinguishes it from plural siblings like get_projects and related project tools.

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 phrase 'by id' makes the intended context clear: use when you have a specific project id and need a single record. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the singular scoping provides enough guidance.

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