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 does well by explaining URL pattern recognition for parameter extraction, providing concrete examples of input handling, and detailing the return structure (listing specific fields like id, code, name, description, scope, etc.). However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, URL pattern recognition, important usage note, examples, return details, and usage summary). While comprehensive, it maintains focus with each section serving a clear purpose. Some minor trimming could improve conciseness, but overall it's efficiently organized.

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 single-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description provides excellent context. It explains the tool's purpose, usage guidelines, parameter handling with examples, and detailed return structure. The only gaps are the lack of error handling information and authentication requirements, but given the tool's simplicity and the comprehensive description, it's mostly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining how to extract the projectId from Dooray URLs with multiple examples, and providing natural language usage patterns ('Show me details of project 123456'). This enhances understanding of parameter semantics beyond the basic schema description.

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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('retrieves', 'get detailed information') and resources ('Dooray project', 'complete details including configuration, scope, organization, and category information'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get-project-list' by focusing on a single project rather than listing multiple projects.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It states: 'When a specific project URL is provided, use this tool directly instead of calling get-project-list first.' This directly addresses the sibling tool 'get-project-list' and gives clear conditions for tool selection.

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