ak_get_project

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose return format, error behavior for missing projects, permissions, rate limits, or whether the response is a full project object or a summary. This is thin for a tool with no annotation support.

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. Every word earns its place, and the verb and object are immediately clear. This is appropriately concise for such a simple operation.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must stand alone. It names the operation and the required parameter but omits return value shape, not-found behavior, and when to prefer this over list operations. For an agent selecting and invoking the tool, this is minimally sufficient but leaves important ambiguities.

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?

Description coverage in the schema is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. 'By id' clarifies that projectId is the lookup key, but the schema property name already suggests this. The description does not explain the format of the ID, how to obtain it, or any constraints beyond the schema's required flag.

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 clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one project'), and the selection mechanism ('by id'). This distinguishes it from the sibling ak_list_projects, which presumably returns multiple projects. However, it could more explicitly contrast itself with the list operation.

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 phrase 'by id' implies this tool should be used when a specific project identifier is known, versus listing projects. But there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over ak_list_projects or any other sibling, and no exclusion criteria.

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