get-project-by-id

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens if the project doesn't exist, or any rate limits. The description lacks crucial behavioral context that would help an agent understand how to handle errors or what to expect from the operation.

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 at just 6 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by communicating the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 operation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information the tool returns about projects, how to handle the optional workspaceName parameter, or what format the response takes. With no annotations and no output schema, the agent lacks crucial information about the tool's behavior and outputs.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (projectId and workspaceName). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a single project by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list-projects' by specifying retrieval of a single item rather than a collection. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get-prompt-by-id' or 'get-trace-by-id' which follow similar patterns.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'list-projects' for single-item retrieval, or how it relates to other 'get-by-id' tools for different resource types. There's also no information about prerequisites or contextual constraints.

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