get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implicitly indicates a read operation via the verb 'Get', but does not explicitly state readonly behavior, authorization needs, error handling, or what happens if the project does not exist. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence that gets straight to the point. It is appropriately front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded to include more useful information without becoming verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at the type of information returned (e.g., key fields or structure). The phrase 'detailed information' is too vague. The tool appears simple, but the description does not fully equip an agent to understand the return value or potential edge cases.

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% for the two parameters, and the schema already clearly describes their meanings. The description adds no additional context or nuance beyond the schema. Therefore, it does not improve parameter understanding, but neither does it detract.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific project' clearly states the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_projects (which returns a list) and get_project_stats (which returns statistics rather than detailed information). However, the term 'detailed' is vague and could be more specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_default_project or get_project_stats. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context.

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