get_project

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

The verb 'Get' signals a read-only retrieval with no destructive side effects, which is the core behavioral trait. However, no annotations are provided, so the description is the only safety signal; it omits details about return behavior, error cases, or authentication requirements.

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 five-word sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter read operation, and the key qualifier 'by ID' is included without unnecessary explanation.

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 minimal CRUD read with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the basic contract but not enough detail. It does not describe the response shape, error behavior, or how it differs from get_projects, leaving moderate gaps for an agent to discover.

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 100% because project_id is documented as 'Project ID' in the input schema. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning beyond restating retrieval by ID, which meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 'Get a project by ID' states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('project'), and a qualifier ('by ID') that distinguishes it from sibling get_projects. An agent can immediately identify this as a single-resource fetch rather than a 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_projects, update_project, or delete_project. There are no stated alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, so usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and schema.

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