taskhub_project_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but it does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether there are any side effects, or what happens if both slug and projectId are provided (e.g., precedence). The description also doesn't note the response shape or size. For a read tool, this is minimal but not entirely absent since it lists return components.

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 leads with the primary action and then lists the included components. There is no fluff or redundant phrasing. It is compact and to the point, though it could have included more usage guidance 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 that there is no output schema, the description does partially explain what is returned ('members, statuses, and modules'). However, it does not clarify parameter usage (e.g., whether either slug or projectId can be used, or if both are needed), nor does it mention any prerequisites or potential limitations. It is adequate for a simple read tool but leaves out details an agent might need for correct invocation.

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 100% — both 'slug' and 'projectId' are described in the schema ('Project slug' and 'Project UUID'). The description itself does not add any additional meaning about these parameters, such as which one to prefer or whether they are interchangeable. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value here.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'project', and enumerates the key aspects (members, statuses, modules). It is specific about what the tool retrieves, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like taskhub_project_members or taskhub_statuses, which could also provide parts of this information. Still, the mention of multiple components suggests a composite read, making the purpose reasonably clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus calling individual sibling tools (e.g., project_members, statuses). The description does not mention any scenarios, exclusions, or recommendations. An agent would have to infer that this tool is a one-stop-shop for project details, but that is not explicit. Lack of any usage context leaves the agent without clear decision support.

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