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. It adds the useful constraint that URLs must be on the same host as GITLAB_BASE_URL, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or what happens when no parameters are provided. The read-only nature is implied by the verb 'Get'.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without any redundancy or filler. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the simple scope of fetching a single project by identifier, the description covers the essential identification options and the host constraint. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. A minor gap is the lack of guidance on what happens if both parameters are null, but that is a schema validation concern.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining that project_id accepts an ID, project_path accepts a path_with_namespace or web URL. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it does not clarify precedence when both are provided or the exact URL format.

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 project details and specifies three identification methods (id, path_with_namespace, web URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects and get_merge_request by focusing on a single project lookup.

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 usage for fetching a specific project's details but does not explicitly contrast with list_projects or other alternatives. The context is clear enough, though it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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