get_innerspace_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, and it does add something concrete: it raises ValueError when the cloud API is not enabled or console_id is empty, which signals a prerequisite (cloud API must be on) and an error mode. It still omits auth requirements, whether this is purely read-only, and anything about the controller selection behavior that the schema hints at.

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 purpose line is front-loaded and the Args/Raises layout is scannable with no padding sentences. It loses a point because one of the three lines (the phantom 'settings' arg) is wasted and actively misleading rather than earning 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and for a two-parameter read tool this is close to adequate. But the description leaves the core question — what 'project data' contains — unanswered, omits the controller parameter entirely, and cites a parameter that isn't in the schema, so an agent cannot fully predict its behavior.

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 50% (controller documented, console_id not), so the description must compensate. It usefully documents console_id's origin in list_hosts, but it never mentions the controller parameter, which materially changes which controller is queried, and it documents a 'settings' argument that does not exist in the schema — a stale, misleading entry.

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 states a verb and resource ('Get the InnerSpace project data') scoped to 'the integration on a console', which is better than a tautology. However, 'project data' is opaque — it does not say what is actually returned or how this tool differs from siblings like list_innerspace_floor_plans, list_innerspace_access_points, or list_innerspace_inventory, all of which live in the same domain.

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 only routing hint is provenance for one argument ('console_id ... from list_hosts'). There is no statement of when to use this tool versus any of the many other InnerSpace/integration list and get tools, and no prerequisites beyond the raised error.

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