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 only states the basic purpose without detailing what 'detailed information' includes, any permissions required, error conditions, or return format. This is minimal and leaves significant gaps for a simple read 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource directly with no filler or redundancy. Every word 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 one-parameter getter with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but not complete. It does not specify the structure or extent of the returned 'detailed information', leaving the agent to infer the response format. Additional detail about what is included would improve completeness.

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% (the lone 'project' parameter is described as 'Project name or ID'). The description adds no further parameter meaning, so per the rules, a baseline of 3 is appropriate. It neither enriches nor contradicts the schema.

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 detailed information about a specific project' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (project) with scope ('specific'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list_projects. It also aligns with other get_* tools like get_work_item, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 use for a specific project (as opposed to list_projects for all projects), but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The 'specific' qualifier gives a hint, but no direct guidance or alternative naming is present.

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