Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint as true. The description adds useful behavioral details like case-insensitive matching and partial match acceptance, which go beyond 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 concise with two sentences, covering all necessary aspects without verbosity. It effectively prioritizes key information.

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 read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers both usage modes (single project retrieval and listing) and provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the name parameter's matching behavior (case-insensitive, partial match) and clarifying the output format default ('json' instead of null). This provides extra context 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves a specific project by name or lists all accessible projects. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_test_case or get_test_case_details, which operate on different resources.

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?

Description explains when to omit the name parameter (to discover project IDs) and details name matching behavior (case-insensitive, exact match preferred). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, but context makes it clear as a read-only tool.

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