get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the case-insensitive matching behavior, which is genuinely useful, but it does not mention what happens when the project is not found, permission requirements, or whether this is strictly read-only.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loads the core action and resource, and every word adds meaning. This is an appropriately sized and well-structured definition.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: return one project, case-insensitive by name. Some edge-case context, such as not-found behavior, would improve it, but the simplicity of the tool limits the impact of that gap.

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?

The schema has 0% coverage, leaving the 'name' parameter with only a title. The description compensates partially by indicating that matching is case-insensitive, but it does not explain the expected name format or whether partial names are acceptable.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('a single project'), and a distinguishing scope ('single' vs. get_projects). It also adds a useful semantic detail ('case-insensitive') that makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 this tool is for retrieving one project by name, and 'single' suggests when not to use the plural sibling get_projects. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_projects or search_personal_data.

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