Describe Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing that the tool returns comprehensive project information including components, metadata, and organization structure, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence elaborates on the return content without fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and it is appropriately concise.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter, high schema coverage, and an output schema present. The description covers the tool's scope (project details and components) adequately for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. No significant information gaps remain.

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 single 'name' parameter is documented). The description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not mention parameter behavior beyond 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 explicitly states 'Get detailed information about a specific Automation Studio project' with a clear verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_projects by specifying that it retrieves project components and metadata, not just a project listing.

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 usage context is implied: when you need detailed information about a specific project. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like describe_template or get_projects, nor does it provide exclusions for scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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