get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'retrieve' which implies a read operation, but doesn't state whether it returns the full project with nested entries, whether deleted projects are excluded, or any pagination/return format behavior. For a simple lookup this is a modest gap.

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?

A single brief sentence with no waste. It's appropriately minimal given the single-parameter simplicity. Could arguably be more informative, but it's well-structured and 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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description doesn't explain the return structure or any edge cases. With one parameter and a clear read purpose, it's functional but leaves the agent guessing about what a project object contains. Sibling tools like get_custom_entry likely return similar shapes, so the agent must guess.

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 the only parameter 'id' is already described as 'エントリID (UUID)' in the schema. The description's '(IDで指定)' adds nothing beyond what the schema already states. Per the high-coverage baseline, a 3 is appropriate.

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 'プロジェクトを取得 (IDで指定)' states the action (retrieve a project) and resource (project), and notes it's by ID. However, it doesn't distinguish this from siblings like list_projects (which retrieves all) or get_custom_entry (which is a different resource type). The purpose is clear but minimal.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer get_project over list_projects, nor any context about what situations warrant fetching a single project. Sibling differentiation is absent.

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