focus_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'get' without stating that it is read-only, whether it can return errors, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation support, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence: 'Toggl Focus/2.0: get a project by ID.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no redundant words or filler.

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 simple get-by-ID operation, the description is generally sufficient. It implies the return of a project object, though it does not explicitly state the return format. Given the simplicity and rich schema, this is adequate.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (coverage 100%), so the schema itself provides parameter semantics. The description adds nothing beyond 'by ID', making it baseline 3.

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 'get a project by ID' clearly states the verb and resource, and the 'by ID' qualifier distinguishes it from listing or creating projects. However, it does not explicitly mention sibling tools or contrast with them.

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 like focus_list_projects, focus_create_project, or focus_update_project. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and 'by ID' phrase, which is not explicit guidance.

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