rm_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns with that by saying 'Get project details.' It adds a little context by naming what details are included, but it does not disclose behaviors such as whether phases are included by default or how the response is structured. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but could have included a brief note about with_phases or usage alternatives without becoming verbose.

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 two-parameter read tool this is minimal but not fully adequate. The description does not explain the with_phases parameter, doesn't differentiate from sibling project tools, and relies entirely on annotations for behavioral context. Given zero schema parameter descriptions, the overall context is incomplete.

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 mentions 'phases' which relates to the with_phases parameter, but it doesn't explain that with_phases controls whether phases are returned, nor does it clarify the project_id format or any constraints. The parameter meaning is only partially conveyed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project details') and lists concrete content areas (budget, phases, client, dates). This makes the tool's main function clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like rm_list_projects or rm_get_project_phase.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rm_list_projects for listing projects or rm_update_project for modifying them. The verb 'Get' implies a single-project read, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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