get_project

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the raw view is large and embeds the vendor's account, while compact drops fields. This helps an agent anticipate payload size and data exposure without contradicting the annotation.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first front-loads the resource and the full field list, and the second flags the raw-mode caveat. Every phrase earns its place.

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 read-only getter with three well-documented parameters, the description plus schema is sufficient to call the tool correctly. It enumerates the return contents and warns about raw response size. A minor gap is that it does not state the project_id source, though the schema already notes it comes from 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the view parameter's raw-vs-compact distinction but largely duplicates what the schema already says; it adds no new semantic detail about origin or project_id 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Project details') and enumerates exactly what is returned: Overview card fields plus participant contact/role data. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or get_flow by describing the concrete payload contents.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_projects or get_flow. The description does not state exclusions or selection criteria, and only explains the view parameter's behavior rather than when the tool itself should be chosen.

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