get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses little: 'live status' hints that the call hits runtime state rather than a cache, which is useful. It says nothing about permissions, whether an unknown project errors, latency/cost of a live query, or whether variable values (versus only names) are exposed.

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?

There is zero waste, but the single sentence fragment is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It is front-loaded only in the sense that there is nothing else to front-load.

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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description does list what comes back, which is the main thing missing from structured data. It still leaves gaps on error behavior and on whether env values or only names are returned, so it is adequate but not complete.

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% and the single 'project' parameter is documented as 'Project id or name'. The description adds no further meaning — no note on name-vs-id resolution behavior or ambiguity handling — so the baseline 3 applies.

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 fragment names the resource ('a project') and the two things returned (services with live status, shared variable names), which is enough to distinguish it from list_projects or get_service. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that it retrieves rather than renders or summarizes. Purpose is inferable, not stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set containing list_projects, get_service, list_services and list_env. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is the right call for a single service lookup or whether list_env would give the variables more cheaply.

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