Read a project record

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, fully covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the exact return contents (body, revision, outgoing references, backlinks, health signals) and the critical revision behavior — that the returned revision is what a later write passes as expectedRevision. This is genuinely useful beyond annotations, though it doesn't describe error cases (e.g., 404 for nonexistent IDs) or pagination behavior.

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 efficient sentences, zero filler. The first states the action and scope; the second provides a critical behavioral detail about revision semantics. Every word earns its place.

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?

With a rich output schema, good annotations, and a single well-documented parameter, the description is nearly complete. The revision→expectedRevision linkage is a subtle and important behavior clearly disclosed. It could mention error handling for nonexistent IDs, but given the completeness of structured fields, this is a minor gap.

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% — the id parameter is fully documented with examples (T-0042, DOC-0003, etc.) and a clear definition of stable record ID. The description adds the key semantic detail that the revision value is reused by writes as expectedRevision, which is valuable context linking this read to the write flow. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter documentation well.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Read one canonical project record by stable ID'. It specifies exactly what's returned (body, revision, outgoing references, backlinks, health signals). Distinguishes from siblings like project_doc_list and project_search which fetch multiple/filtered results. The scope ('one canonical record') is unambiguous.

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 states it reads by stable ID and notes this is the getter counterpart to write tools. It implies this is for fetching single records by ID rather than listing/searching. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it (e.g., for bulk retrieval use project_search/project_card_list).

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