get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get detailed information' implies a read operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes 'detailed information' in the response format. The description is too vague about the actual behavior beyond the basic retrieval concept.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration or redundant phrasing.

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 read operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, whether authentication is required, what happens with invalid project IDs, or how the optional parameters affect the response. Given the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how 'expand' and 'include' differ, provide examples of valid values, or clarify the relationship between these optional parameters.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from list_projects by specifying retrieval of a single project, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools that retrieve different resource types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use get_project versus list_projects, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases for retrieving project details.

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