get_card_project

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the 'readOnlyHint' annotation by detailing what is included in the response (customizations, paper/color options, pages). It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently delivers key information. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Minor length but no unnecessary 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 no output schema, the description adequately outlines the return structure, listing customization categories and options. For a simple retrieval tool with one parameter, this provides sufficient completeness.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'from list_card_projects' which is already in the schema description. No additional meaning or format details are added 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 identifies the action ('Get full details') and resource ('invitation project'), and specifies the scope ('including all customizations...'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'list_card_projects' which lists projects, and 'get_card_project_guests' which retrieves guests only.

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 when full project details are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_card_project_guests' or 'list_card_projects'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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