project_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, and the annotation title is literally "GET /project-service/api/projects/{id}" — so the description's third line repeats structured data verbatim. It adds nothing about permission-scoped visibility (the withAnyPermission behavior) or what happens when the id is unknown or the caller lacks access.

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?

Three lines restate one fact: the tool name, "Retrieves a project", "Retrieves a project by id", then the raw HTTP path. No sentence earns its place beyond the first, and nothing useful is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, an agent has no idea what a "project" object contains or how permission filtering narrows the result. Combined with no sibling differentiation in a tool list containing several project-fetch endpoints, the definition is too thin to call reliably.

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 description coverage is 100% and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's "by id" adds no meaning beyond the schema's "The id of the project. (path)" and says nothing about apiVersion or withAnyPermission.

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?

It does state a verb and resource ("Retrieves a project by id"), but the phrase is immediately preceded by the identical generic sentence "Retrieves a project", so the net information is only the id keying. It gives no basis for choosing between project_get_all_projects, iaas_get_project, or project_get_projects_by_id_resource_metadata.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this single-item fetch versus the list variant or the IaaS project endpoint. The description contains no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions an agent could act on.

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