project_details

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

The only behavioral signal comes from the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), which the description neither confirms nor enriches. It says nothing about what a "details" payload contains, whether it is expensive, or whether an idempotency key matters for a read. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds no context of its own.

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?

Two words are technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economy: there is no structure, no front-loaded purpose, and no information that earns the call. Length is not the issue; absence of content is.

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?

A read tool with nested untyped arguments, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation depends entirely on the description, which supplies nothing. An agent would have to guess at the meaning of basis and intent and at what the result represents.

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 explains no parameter. The two nested objects, basis and intent, are untyped and completely undefined anywhere, and idempotency_key's role on a read-only call is unexplained. With a required project_id and opaque nested arguments, the description should carry this burden and does not.

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?

"project details" only restates the tool name and gives no verb or scope; it never says whether it fetches, summarizes, or renders a project. An agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like product_overview, studio_overview, or context on the basis of this text.

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 exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of the many sibling tools that surface project-related information. Nothing tells the agent which call to make first or when this one is the wrong choice.

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