get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return fields (description, URLs, stats, category, tags, and more), which gives some insight into behavior, but does not disclose whether it requires authentication, whether data is real-time or cached, or what 'and more' excludes. The score is adequate but not exceptional.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and adds useful content by listing relevant fields. It earns its place without fluff.

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 there are no annotations, no output schema, and only one simple required parameter, the description provides enough information for an AI agent to correctly invoke the tool and understand what data to expect back (description, URLs, stats, category, tags). A small gap is not specifying if additional fields beyond those listed are included.

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%, and the only parameter (slug) is already well-described in the schema with an example. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a specific Ai project by its slug'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'get_trending' and 'search_projects' by indicating it retrieves a single project by identifier.

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 clearly tells when to use this tool (when you have a project slug and want full details), but does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives among siblings. Since the context signals include sibling tool names, some implicit guidance is available but not explicit.

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