VPS_getProjectContentsV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read-only operation ('retrieves', 'inspect', 'review', 'check'). It does not mention authentication or error behaviors, but for a simple get operation this is adequate.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: first states what it does, second elaborates, third lists use cases. No wasted words, well front-loaded.

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 description covers what is returned (compose file, metadata, deployment status). It does not mention that the project must exist or that the VM is required, but the schema indicates required parameters. For a simple read tool with two params, this is almost 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%; both parameters already have meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it retrieves complete project information including docker-compose.yml, metadata, and deployment status. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like VPS_getProjectListV1 or VPS_getProjectContainersV1.

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 provides explicit use cases ('inspect project settings, review the compose file, or check overall project health'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use.

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