VPS_getProjectContentsV1

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 implies a read-only operation by using 'retrieves' and lists the type of data returned. However, it does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., VM existence), permissions, rate limits, or response format. The absence of an output schema further reduces transparency. The description adds some value by mentioning specific contents but is insufficiently detailed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the key information. The first sentence is the most informative. The second sentence is somewhat redundant ('This endpoint provides...' restates the first). It could be trimmed to two sentences without loss. Overall, it is concise and well-structured, earning a 4.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, read-only retrieval), the description covers the main purpose. However, the lack of an output schema means the agent has no information about the return structure. Mentioning specific contents (docker-compose.yml, metadata) helps, but it is not fully complete. The description adequately informs the agent about what the tool does but leaves gaps in expected output format.

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 have descriptive names. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema. For example, 'projectName' is described as a Docker Compose project name in the schema, and the description confirms the tool deals with Docker Compose projects. The description adds no new parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves complete project information including docker-compose.yml, metadata, and deployment status. The verb 'retrieves' combined with the specific resource (project) and scope (complete information) makes the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like VPS_getProjectListV1 (listing) and VPS_getProjectContainersV1 (containers only) by emphasizing completeness.

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 the overall project health.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like VPS_getProjectContainersV1 or VPS_getProjectLogsV1 for partial data.

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