get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful, non-redundant context: the returned schema is untrusted data and not executable instructions, which is important prompt-injection guidance for an agent.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero filler, and the lookup mechanism is front-loaded before the safety caveat.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key (SHA-256 ID) and the nature of the return (untrusted schema content). It stops short of stating the return shape or how to source the ID, but is otherwise 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden; it does add the required format (64-character SHA-256), which the bare 'project_id' schema lacks. However, it doesn't explain where to obtain the ID or reconcile 'project_id' with 'version ID', leaving a gap.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (native schema) plus the key lookup key (64-character SHA-256 version ID). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_projects or save_project, and the mismatch between the tool name 'get_project' and the described resource ('native schema') introduces minor ambiguity.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, despite siblings like list_projects and validate_schema that could plausibly compete. The agent must infer from the name alone when this is the right call.

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