fr_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves a project but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the project doesn't exist. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a bullet point explaining the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it explains what the tool does and parameter semantics. However, it lacks behavioral context that would be important for a retrieval tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the parameter semantics: it clarifies that project_identifier accepts either numeric ID or string key with examples (123, 'ENG'). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic type definition.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'project from Freshrelease', specifying it retrieves by 'ID or key'. It distinguishes from siblings like fr_create_project (create) and fr_get_all_tasks (list tasks), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from fr_get_task which retrieves tasks rather than projects.

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 implies usage when needing to retrieve a specific project by identifier, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like fr_create_project or fr_get_all_tasks. No when-not scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned.

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