get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It lists the return fields, which is useful, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the project does not exist) or any authentication requirements. The description is adequate for a simple getter but leaves these aspects implicit.

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, compact sentence that places the primary action and selector upfront, followed by a list of returned fields. Zero filler; every element contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and output.

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 getter with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return payload by listing the fields. It omits minor details like error handling, but these are not critical for a straightforward lookup tool. The level of detail is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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% because the sole parameter 'projectId' already has a clear description ('The project ID to look up'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides—it merely restates the lookup key. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('project details'), and the selector ('by project ID'). It also enumerates the specific fields returned (name, project number, customer, etc.), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like search_projects, which imply searching rather than direct lookup.

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 phrase 'by project ID' implies that a known ID is required, which is a clear usage condition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as search_projects when the ID is unknown, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, so it falls short of a 4.

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