get_connected_project

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety behavior. It adds value by telling the caller what data to expect (sync mode, webhook status, linked migration, deployment). No side effects or error conditions are described, but none are necessary for a read-only getter with this annotation coverage.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence contains all essential information with no filler. Every phrase 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-only retrieval tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, this description is sufficient for an agent to select and call it correctly. The missing explicit sibling routing is a minor usage-guidance gap, not a completeness gap.

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 single parameter 'id' is fully documented in the schema with type, format, and description ('Connected project ID'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('connected project') and enumerates the key returned aspects (sync mode, webhook status, linked migration, deployment). This makes it clearly distinguishable from list_connected_projects (listing) and from get_deployment/get_migration (which target specific entities rather than a project aggregate).

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 implies this is the tool to call when you need a single connected project's details, which is clear in context. However, it never explicitly says when not to use it or points to list_connected_projects or other siblings for alternative use cases. The guidance is left to inference from the name rather than stated.

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