Get Project Status

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal return content (event counts, last event time) and implies a read-only operation via the verb 'Get', but it omits any details about side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or the meaning of 'etc.'. The provided examples give some transparency, but significant behavioral context is missing.

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 immediately states the action and resource, with parenthetical examples. It is efficient, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The only slight weakness is the vague 'etc.', but this does not undermine the overall conciseness.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, but the description leaves gaps: it doesn't clarify how this differs from sibling tools, what 'status' fully includes, or whether project_id is required or optional (though the schema covers the latter). For a basic getter, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive given the lack of annotations and usage guidance.

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 only parameter, project_id, is fully described in the input schema as 'Override the default project ID', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, and since the schema already explains the parameter's purpose, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a verb ('Get') and resource ('status of a project'), and provides concrete examples of what that status includes ('event counts, last event time'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_dashboard or get_insights, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The meaning is clear and specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling analytics tools (get_dashboard, get_retention, etc.). There is no mention of appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. Users are left to infer that it provides a quick project-level overview, but this is not stated.

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