get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds nothing beyond this — no mention of what is returned, error behavior for missing IDs, or access scope.

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?

Two sentences that say the same thing; the second is pure redundancy rather than front-loaded value. Nothing in the text earns its place.

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 read-by-ID tool with no output schema and one nested parameter, the description is technically adequate but contributes no information beyond the name and annotations. It fails to clarify the identifier's shape or the tool's relation to sibling project lookups.

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 0% overall, and the only meaningful detail — that the parameter is a project identifier — is stated both in the description ('unique identifier') and the schema's projectId description. The nested 'path' wrapper object is not explained, and the description adds no format or constraint information.

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 two sentences restate the tool name ('Get a specific project' / 'Retrieve a specific project using its unique identifier') without adding distinguishing detail. It does convey verb+resource but offers nothing to tell it apart from the many sibling read tools like get_project_collection or get_my_project_collection.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus get_project_collection (list) or get_my_project_collection, nor any prerequisite or context. Usage is entirely implied by the tool name.

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