infomaniak_get_public_cloud_project

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safe read-only behavior is known. The description reinforces this and adds 'one' to indicate singular scope, but it does not add further behavioral context such as error handling, permissions, or response details.

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, short sentence: 'Read one Public Cloud project.' It is front-loaded with the action and resource, contains zero redundancy, and every word earns its place.

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 simple read-by-id tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context and parameter semantics, so an agent may not know how to obtain the required IDs or distinguish this from related tools.

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%, and the description does not explain the meaning or relationship of public_cloud_id and project_id. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and resource 'Public Cloud project', and the modifier 'one' clearly distinguishes it from list operations like infomaniak_list_public_cloud_projects. It is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_public_cloud_projects should be used for enumeration, or how this differs from get_public_cloud, which could lead to incorrect selection.

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