get_project

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. 'Get project details' implies a read operation, but no information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or response format is given. This is minimal for safe usage.

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 extremely concise (3 words) and front-loaded. Every word is necessary to convey the core purpose. No unnecessary detail or repetition.

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 has no output schema, the description should explain what details are returned. It does not. The simplicity of the tool (1 parameter) slightly offsets this, but the lack of return information makes it incomplete for 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (projectId description 'Project ID'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not compensate with parameter context.

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 project details' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that target different entities (e.g., get_cycle, get_document) and from list_projects which returns multiple projects. However, it could be more explicit about retrieving a single project by ID.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects (for listing all projects) or other 'get' tools. The agent must infer from the input schema that it requires a projectId.

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