get_project_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add one genuinely useful behavioral trait: the response is large and should be reserved for comprehensive needs. However, it says nothing about permissions, pagination, or performance cost beyond the size warning, leaving the safety/mutation profile entirely implicit (it is a read, but that is only inferable from the verb).

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 purpose and followed immediately by the caution about data volume. No filler, every sentence 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope and the important payload-size caveat, which is what an agent most needs to avoid an expensive accidental call. It could still note the read-only nature or expected return structure, but nothing essential is missing.

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% and the single projectId parameter is documented in the schema as 'Project ID to get details for.' The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the ID, so the baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific project') and enumerates the content scope (fixtures, looks, cue lists), which distinguishes it from the summary-oriented get_project and list_projects siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the lighter alternative, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than 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?

Gives a clear usage condition: use it 'only when you need comprehensive project information,' which steers the agent away from this tool for lightweight lookups. The guidance is directional but never names the cheaper alternative (e.g., get_project) that should be used instead, so the routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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