paperclip_get_project

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: error handling for 401 and 404 status codes, and a clear listing of return fields. No contradiction with annotations; the description enhances transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). It is concise, each sentence is meaningful, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It lists return fields, provides usage examples, and covers error handling. No gaps given the tool's complexity and the presence of rich annotations.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by providing an example UUID ('prj_abc123') for projectId and explaining the default and purpose of response_format, which goes beyond the schema's enum list.

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 clearly states 'Get a single project by UUID, including its associated workspaces', specifying the verb (get), resource (project), and scope (single by UUID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like paperclip_list_projects by mentioning alternative use cases.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use ('reading project details or checking workspace cwd') and when not to use ('need a list of projects — use paperclip_list_projects'), along with an alternative tool name. This is excellent guidance for an AI agent.

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