get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the depth of the payload (per-step status, notes, artifacts, recent events), which tells the agent this is a heavy full-state read rather than a summary. It stops short of noting cost/verbosity or pagination behavior.

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 compact clause with no filler, and the most useful information (breadth of state returned) is front-loaded. It loses a point only because the fragment lacks an action verb, which would have cost nothing to include.

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 an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what the structured fields do not: the scope of returned state. Missing only an explicit signal about payload size or how it relates to list_projects.

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_id parameter already documents its format and origin ('from start_project, e.g. p-1a2b3c4d'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, 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?

Names the specific resource ('project state') and enumerates what it contains (step status, notes, artifacts, recent events), which implicitly distinguishes it from list_projects and start_project. However it is a noun fragment with no verb, and it never explicitly states 'retrieves one project by id' or names the sibling it differs from.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus list_projects, next_step, or update_step, and no preconditions. The agent must infer that this is the deep-read counterpoint to the shallow list tool.

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