get_project_details

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

Without annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It specifies that it is a read operation, returns a JSON string with details/roles/quotas, and notes the 'list all' behavior for empty parameter. This sufficiently covers the expected behavior for a simple read tool.

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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, parameters, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description adequately covers input, output, and behavior. Minor gap: no mention of error handling for nonexistent project, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the only parameter 'project_name', including its purpose, optionality, and effect (lists all if empty). This adds all necessary meaning beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves OpenStack project details, with a CLI equivalent ('openstack project list/show') for reference. It distinguishes from sibling tools (none other target projects) and notes the optional filtering behavior.

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 indicates when to use (to get project details) and explains the optional parameter behavior (empty lists all). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tool list does not contain a direct substitute.

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