get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the return structure (key, title, description, attribute values, case index), but does not go deeper into behavior like pagination, authentication, or error handling beyond what the schema already notes for the key parameter.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields. The second sentence provides a useful pointer to list_projects without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 a single required parameter, high schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is quite complete. It lists the returned fields and how to obtain the key. Minor omission: it doesn't explicitly state fallback behavior for invalid keys, but that is covered in the schema's parameter description.

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 100% coverage: the key parameter is described with its meaning, case-insensitivity, and error behavior, plus an example. The description only repeats 'by its key' without adding any new semantic detail, so it does not exceed the schema's documentation. 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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('one project by its key'), and enumerates exactly what is returned (key, title, description, attribute values, case index), making it distinct from siblings like list_projects or update_project. It also references list_projects for obtaining keys, further clarifying scope.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when you have a project key and want its details. It explicitly points to list_projects for retrieving keys, giving context for the required input. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for bulk retrieval) or mention other alternatives beyond list_projects.

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