get_project

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It implies read-only behavior ('Retrieve'), but does not explicitly confirm safety, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), or any side effects. It does state the return content, adding some transparency.

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?

Two sentences: first defines action and key input, second summarizes return value. No extra words, front-loaded with purpose. Efficient.

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?

For a simple read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential: what it does, what input it takes, and what it returns. It omits potential error cases (missing project) but is largely complete for an agent.

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% (one parameter with description). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema: both say retrieve by ID. Baseline 3 due to high coverage; no extra value provided.

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 the verb 'Retrieve' and specifies resource 'specific project by its ID', clearly distinguishing it from list_projects (which retrieves multiple) and other get_* tools. It also enumerates the categories of returned details (client info, budget, billing, dates).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects or get_project_budget_report. No mention of prerequisites, required permissions, or scenarios where this is the right choice.

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