get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses the returned payload composition (trackers, categories, modules, time entry activities), which is real context beyond annotations, but it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown project or permission requirements.

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 short sentence with no filler; each enumerated sub-resource earns its place. The only structural weakness is that it is a noun fragment rather than a verb-led statement, so it reads as a return-value caption rather than a tool 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?

With no output schema, the description is the only source of return-shape information, and it does cover the payload contents. For an otherwise simple, fully-annotated single-parameter read tool that is close to adequate, but the absence of any action framing or error behavior leaves a gap.

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% and the single 'project' parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example and the id-or-slug alternative. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 is a noun fragment ('A project with its trackers, issue categories, enabled modules and time entry activities') that never states a verb, so the retrieval action must be inferred from the name get_project. It does add specificity by enumerating the related sub-entities included in the payload, which helps distinguish it from list_projects, but the core purpose is only implied.

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, no mention of the sibling list_projects, and no note that this requires a specific project identifier. The agent gets no help deciding between fetching one project versus listing all projects.

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