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 clearly states that the tool retrieves project information and returns a project_structure object, detailing its fields and intended use. It does not cover error behavior or side effects, but 'retrieve' and the absence of mutation language convey a read-only 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 structure is clean with a summary, lookup detail, and a bulleted scoping section. The first two sentences are slightly redundant ('by ID or name' appears twice), so it is not maximally concise, but the scoping guidance is compact and useful.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description need not restate return values. It adequately explains the returned project_structure and its agent-facing purpose, though it omits guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings and does not clarify behavior when both or neither identifiers are supplied.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the UUID nuance for project_id and implies that either project_id or project_name can be used for lookup, which enriches the schema's bare string/null types.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource ('Retrieve project information') and specifies lookup by ID or name. It clearly conveys a single-project lookup, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_projects or create_project, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 indicates when the tool is useful—when project information or the project_structure is needed—and instructs agents to use the returned structure when refining prompts. However, it offers no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools such as list_projects or health_check.

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