todoist_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool retrieves project details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's a read-only operation, authentication requirements, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are structured clearly without unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details like authentication or error handling, which are important for a tool with no annotations, preventing a perfect score.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'project_id' is 'The ID of the project to retrieve', clarifying its purpose. With schema description coverage at 0% and 1 parameter, this compensates well, providing essential context that the schema alone lacks. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 the verb ('Get') and resource ('a single project by ID'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'todoist_get_projects' by specifying 'single project' versus multiple projects. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other siblings like 'todoist_get_task', leaving minor room for improvement.

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 usage by stating 'Get a single project by ID', suggesting it's for retrieving specific projects when the ID is known. It doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like 'todoist_get_projects' for listing all projects or 'todoist_get_task' for tasks, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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