get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds useful context by specifying that the result is restricted to 'one allowed' project and includes 'planning settings'. It does not contradict annotations, but it stops short of explaining behavior for disallowed IDs or missing projects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, redundancies, or repeated annotation information. Every word contributes to specifying the operation and its scope.

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 single-parameter read operation with an output schema and readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description is largely adequate. It clearly states what is read and what is included, though it could briefly mention that valid project IDs come from list_allowed_projects.

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 0%, and the description never explicitly explains that project_id identifies the allowed project. Although project_id is a simple, self-describing integer parameter, the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'Project Id' title.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Read', and identifies the exact resource, 'one allowed Odoo project', plus the included scope, 'planning settings'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_allowed_projects (which lists multiple) and update_project (which mutates), and from get_project_workload (which targets workload rather than planning settings).

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as list_allowed_projects for retrieving many projects or get_project_workload for workload-specific data. The description implies single-project retrieval but leaves the decision entirely to inference.

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