Получение проекта

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

The description only says 'returns detailed information' without addressing potential side effects or clarifying the readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true annotations. It doesn't disclose any additional behavioral context such as permissions or output format.

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?

One short, focused sentence in Russian that front-loads the action and object. No filler words.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool without output schema, the description gives adequate purpose but leaves the return structure vague. It could specify what 'detailed information' includes, but the tool's complexity is low.

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?

The input schema already fully describes the single parameter project_id with a clear description, and the tool description adds no further parameter semantics. The phrase 'by its ID' echoes the schema.

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 returns detailed project information by ID, using a specific verb and resource. The 'by ID' scope distinguishes it from list_projects and other project-related tools.

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 implies usage for retrieving a single project but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives like list_projects. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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