sprrint_projects_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-style retrieval ('Get') and that the response includes members, which is useful. It does not mention error behavior, authentication requirements, or any other side effects, but for a simple getter this is a reasonable level of disclosure.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core action and then adding the key identification detail and the members inclusion. Every clause 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 single-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the input, explains how to identify the target, and hints at the return shape. It does not detail other returned fields, but that is partially mitigated by 'including members' and the fact that the tool is a straightforward read operation.

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 schema only defines a 'project' string with no description, giving 0% schema coverage. The description compensates by explaining that the parameter can be a key or slug, which is essential semantic information for invoking the tool correctly. It could be more explicit that 'project' is the parameter receiving that key/slug value, but the meaning is clear.

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 action ('Get one project'), the resource ('project'), and the identification method ('by key or slug'), plus the return scope ('including members'). This distinguishes it from sprrint_projects_list (which retrieves many projects) and from mutation siblings like create/update/archive.

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 when to use it: when you need a single project by key or slug. However, it does not explicitly mention sprrint_projects_list as the alternative for retrieving multiple projects, nor does it state exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to another tool.

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