qobrix_get_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. It discloses the return shape ('Returns { data: { id, ... } }') and lists verified include options, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not explicitly state read-only safety, error behavior, or permission requirements, though these are minimally expected for a 'get' operation.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and return shape, the second lists verified includes, and the third provides cross-tool references. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 moderate complexity (single resource, two parameters) and no output schema, the description provides essential context: purpose, return shape, includes, and related tools. It lacks error/not-found behavior and authentication notes, but these are not critical for a getter tool and the description is otherwise thorough.

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 schema already describes both parameters (id and include) with clear descriptions, giving high coverage. The description adds value by confirming the verified include options (Agents, Developer, etc.) and providing usage patterns like `project == '<uuid>'` and `related_model='Projects'`, which clarifies how parameters relate to other tools.

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 opens with 'Get a single project by UUID — development detail view for off-plan/new-build listings', which uses a specific verb and resource and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like qobrix_list_projects (list) and qobrix_get_property (different resource). The phrase 'development detail view' adds domain-specific context, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Get a single project by UUID') and directs users to alternatives for related data: 'To see project units: qobrix_search_properties with project == '<uuid>'' and 'To see project media: qobrix_list_media with related_model=''Projects'' and related_id=<uuid>'. This provides clear usage guidance and differentiates from siblings.

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