get_project

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

The annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, read-only, non-destructive operation, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds a small amount of context by hinting that statuses and custom fields are included in the result, but says nothing about permissions, visibility scoping, or failure behavior when the project does not exist.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than deliberately tight.

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 read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is minimally viable. With no output schema present, it should describe the returned shape more concretely than a passing mention of 'statuses and custom fields', and it omits any guidance on the surrounding workflow.

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% with a single required project_id, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no clarification on ID format, source of the ID, or resolution behavior for unknown IDs.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get project details'), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near siblings such as get_task, list_projects, or get_project_knowledge, leaving the boundary to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. With siblings like list_projects and get_project_knowledge in the same family, the description should say whether this is the single-project lookup versus the enumeration tool, but it does not.

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