get_project

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

With no annotations, the description implies a read operation but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior if the project_id is invalid. Some transparency is missing, though the core behavior is implied.

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 extremely concise, with no filler words. It front-loads the purpose and uses a compact format. Every sentence is necessary and adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, the vague 'Project details' return is acceptable. However, the description could mention that the tool requires an existing project or how errors are handled. Still, for a simple get tool, it is mostly complete.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type with 0% coverage. The description adds 'ID of the project to fetch,' clarifying the role of project_id but does not provide any constraints, format, or examples beyond what the schema already has.

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 'Get details of a specific project,' using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like list_projects (which lists multiple) and delete_project (which removes).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_projects for a list or get_project_role for role details. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or what prerequisites exist.

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