get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get project details', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any potential behavior such as permissions, rate limits, or response format. This is minimal and leaves the agent uninformed about side effects or error scenarios.

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 efficient sentence with no waste. It gets straight to the point, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness. It earns its place but does not elaborate.

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 operation with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and no annotation support, so the agent is left without details on return structure, error conditions, or prerequisites. Slightly more context would make it complete.

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%, and the description does not explain the projectKey parameter beyond its name. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no extra meaning and fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, which is required given the low coverage.

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 project details" clearly states a specific verb (Get) and resource (project details), distinguishing it from sibling tools such as get_projects (plural) and get_issue (different resource). It precisely conveys that this tool fetches a single project's information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_projects or get_issue. The description implies usage for a single project by its key, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions.

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