get_project_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not mention that listing projects typically requires elevated/admin privileges, nor whether the response is scoped to the caller's token, nor any pagination behavior; 'Get ... details' only weakly implies a read.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the CLI analogy as a compact mental model. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical does more work than a direct statement of scope would.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool has only one optional parameter. Still, for a no-annotation tool the description leaves out permission requirements and the list-vs-show distinction, which are the pieces an agent would otherwise need.

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 optional 'project_name' parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the empty-string-means-list-all behavior). The description adds nothing beyond that, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('OpenStack project details'), and the 'openstack project list/show' analogy pins down the domain. No sibling tool covers projects, so the description does not need to differentiate, though it never says whether this is admin-scoped or tenant-scoped.

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 'list/show' analogy implies two modes (enumerate all vs. inspect one), but the description never states when to use which or any prerequisite; the actual list-vs-show rule lives only in the schema's parameter description, not here.

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