get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the note that subcomponent arrays are not returned is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about permissions, behavior when the projectId doesn't exist, or that include=budget triggers extra computation/cost.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded before the alternative-tool routing. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly and sets expectations about what is and isn't in the response. It could go slightly further by sketching the returned project fields, but the essentials are present.

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%, so the baseline is 3; both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the 'budget' enum and the note that subcomponents come from other tools. The description's 'include: ["budget"]' example restates rather than extends 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get project details by ID') plus the distinguishing scope ('with subcomponent counts'), and names the dedicated sibling tools for each excluded subcomponent. An agent can tell it apart from list_project_tasks, get_project_risks, etc. without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool (project details, and budget via include) and when not to (tasks, risks, issues, purchases, revenues go to named dedicated tools). The only gap is that it never points to search_projects for obtaining the projectId in the first place.

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