describe_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It uses non-destructive verbs 'Get' and 'Retrieves', implying a read-only operation, and discloses the scope of returned data (all components, metadata, organization structure). However, it does not explicitly mention side-effect-free behavior or potential errors, so it is not a perfect 5.

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, front-loading the core purpose and adding useful detail in the second. Every sentence contributes value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains what information the tool returns and the scope. The main gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but that is covered in other dimensions.

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% with the parameter 'name' described as 'The name of the project to describe'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not exceed the baseline for a fully documented 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 gets detailed information about a specific Automation Studio project, using a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'project'. It further details that it includes all components, metadata, and organization structure, distinguishing it from other describe_* siblings like describe_session or describe_resource.

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 a specific project by name, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_projects (which likely lists projects) or other describe tools. There is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, only a general indication that it works on a single project.

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