webforge_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 states the tool retrieves 'detailed information,' but does not specify what that includes (e.g., metadata, status, permissions), whether it's a read-only operation, potential errors (e.g., invalid project ID), or performance aspects. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond basic purpose.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get detailed information'), making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness in tool definitions.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that retrieves 'detailed information.' It does not explain what details are returned, error handling, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective use. The high schema coverage helps with inputs, but overall completeness is poor due to missing output and behavioral details.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_id' documented as 'Project ID.' The description adds no additional semantic context (e.g., format examples, where to find the ID, or constraints), so it relies entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value from the 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific project'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'webforge_list_projects' (which likely lists multiple projects) or 'webforge_get_palette_details' (which focuses on palettes), leaving room for ambiguity in tool selection.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), exclusions, or direct comparisons to siblings like 'webforge_list_projects' for listing projects or 'webforge_update_project' for modifications, leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.

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