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 does disclose that the tool reads configuration and capability switches (implying a non-destructive read), but says nothing about permissions, side effects on the active project, or the shape of what is returned. For a simple single-parameter read this is adequate but thin.

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?

A single front-loaded phrase with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 is simple (one optional, fully documented parameter) and the schema covers the input completely, but with no output schema the description should say more about what 'configuration and capability switches' are returned. It is minimally viable rather than complete.

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%, so the schema already documents project_id and its NARRATIVE_DEFAULT_PROJECT fallback. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when structured fields do the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb (读取/read) and resource (项目配置与能力开关/project configuration and capability flags), which is more than a tautology of the name. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like list_projects, discover_projects, or validate_project, which an agent must distinguish between.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many project-related siblings. The agent is left to infer that this retrieves configuration rather than listing, validating, or initializing projects.

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