cor_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral details beyond the obvious read operation. It does not mention authentication, error handling, or return structure, leaving the agent with minimal context.

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 short and front-loaded. The first sentence conveys the purpose. The Args section is minimal but not wasteful. Could be slightly more efficient by removing the Args header since it's clear.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context for edge cases (e.g., missing ID) and authentication requirements, making it barely adequate.

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 parameter description 'project_id: The project ID' adds little beyond the schema. With 0% schema coverage, the description should provide type constraints or format hints, but it merely restates the parameter name.

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 'Get a single project by ID', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like cor_get_allocations_by_project or cor_get_project_collaborators by focusing on the project itself.

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 (when you need a project by ID) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives like cor_list_projects for multiple projects.

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