get_hex_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves details (implying a read operation) and returns JSON, but doesn't describe error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what specific details are included in the response. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks details on return structure, error cases, and behavioral traits. Without annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for reliable agent invocation.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by specifying 'The UUID of the Hex project', which clarifies the format and purpose beyond the schema's generic 'Project Id' title. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though it doesn't provide examples or constraints on the UUID format.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get details') and resource ('about a specific Hex project'). It distinguishes this from list/search operations by focusing on a single project, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_hex_project_runs which also retrieves project-related information.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'a specific Hex project' and requiring a project_id, suggesting this is for retrieving details of a known project rather than listing or searching. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_hex_projects or search_hex_projects, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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