getProject

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds minimal behavioral detail beyond the annotations; it says 'Inspect' which aligns with read-only, but it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like authentication requirements or performance characteristics. Since the annotations are comprehensive, the description adds only marginal behavioral value.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and content, and the second sentence provides targeted alternatives. This is a model of concise, structured tool documentation.

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 single parameter, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It states what the tool returns (configuration and metadata including description, trackers, enabled modules) and when to use alternatives, leaving no critical gaps.

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 fully documents the single parameter, projectId, with 'Project identifier or numeric ID' (100% schema coverage). The description does not add any further meaning or constraints about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline 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 the tool's purpose: 'Inspect one known project's configuration and metadata' with a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('project configuration and metadata'). It also lists what is included (description, trackers, enabled modules) and distinguishes from siblings by naming alternatives. This makes it immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from 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 explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use getProjectSummary for aggregated issue metrics, listProjectMembers for people or listVersions for milestones.' This directly tells an agent which alternative to choose based on the need, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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