get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response size. For a simple get tool, this is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word serves a purpose, specifying the resource, action, and key parameters efficiently.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what 'full configuration' includes. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the return structure. This is a notable gap for a retrieval tool where return format is crucial.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying that 'idOrName' can be either an ID or a name, which is not fully explicit in the schema. This is a marginal improvement, keeping the score at baseline.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('project'), and the scope ('full configuration by id or name'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects (which returns multiple projects) and update_project (which modifies).

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 implies usage context by specifying retrieval by id or name, which helps agents decide when to use this tool versus list_projects or other project-related tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., for partial data, use list_projects).

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