get_project_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with a project management system.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter with an example. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The structure is clean, though the 'Args:' formatting could be slightly more polished.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description's main gaps are in usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. For a simple read tool with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about when to use it versus siblings and operational constraints.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'project_key' by providing an example format ('e.g., "PROJ"'), which is valuable since schema description coverage is 0%. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't explain where to find project keys or validation rules.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific project'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'get_issue', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 'list_projects' (for listing all projects) or 'get_issue' (for issue details). It mentions the required parameter but doesn't explain the context or prerequisites for using this specific retrieval tool.

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