Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which adequately cover the behavioral profile. The description adds the specific API endpoint (GET /projects/{project}) but does not introduce new behavioral traits or contradict the annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the essential information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 read operation with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context given the rich annotations. The only minor gap is that 'metadata' is somewhat vague, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 all three parameters (baseUrl, apiKey, project) having detailed descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 explicitly states the HTTP method (GET) and resource (/projects/{project}), and specifies the use case: 'when a single project's metadata is needed.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like aiproject_list_projects and aiproject_delete_project.

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 provides a clear context: 'Use this when a single project's metadata is needed.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. The sibling list implies alternatives, but the guidance is not as strong as a direct exclusion.

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