project_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well by disclosing what is returned and that the summary flag controls inclusion of active IPs, pin count, and ProjectManager settings. Read-only behavior is strongly implied by 'Describe', but explicit non-mutating/no-side-effect language and error behavior are absent.

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 sentence with no filler. The key purpose is stated first, followed by returned fields and the optional summary.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns; it does so by listing the project properties and the optional IOC summary contents. For a simple two-parameter getter it is nearly complete, though error cases or invalid project_id behavior are not mentioned.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by expanding what the optional summary actually contains (active IPs, pin count, ProjectManager settings), which is more specific than the schema's 'Include the parsed .ioc summary'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Describe one project') and enumerates the returned fields (MCU, toolchain, .ioc path, optional IOC summary). It implicitly distinguishes itself from project_list by promising a single project, but does not explicitly name the sibling.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch details for a known project_id, optionally including the IOC summary. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of project_list as the alternative for enumeration.

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