get-project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral content by enumerating the returned fields (scope, projectType, state, organizationId), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of describing failure behavior for an invalid or archived project ID, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 response-field list and the URL guidance both earn their place given the absence of an output schema. However, the two URL examples (with and without task ID) and the separate 'From URL with task' line restate the same extraction rule, and the final 'Use this to get full details...' sentence duplicates the opening.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies both the input-derivation rule and the shape of the return value. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly and interpret the result is missing.

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% and the single parameter is documented, but the description goes well beyond it by specifying exactly how to extract projectId from Dooray URLs, including the case with a trailing TASK_ID. That extraction rule is real semantic value the schema cannot express.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific Dooray project'), and the closing line reinforces scope. The explicit contrast with get-project-list ('use this tool directly instead of calling get-project-list') lets an agent separate it from the closest sibling without opening either schema.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (a specific project URL or ID is known) and when not to (do not call get-project-list first). The URL examples convert that rule into concrete invocation guidance rather than leaving it to inference.

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