project_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly declares the tool as 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., error handling for nonexistent projects) or authentication requirements, though for a simple read operation this may suffice.

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 extremely concise with two short phrases, front-loading the most critical information ('Read-only, REST plane'). Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the essential aspects: read-only operation, single project retrieval. Minor gap: it could mention the required 'name' parameter explicitly.

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 0%, and the tool description does not explain the 'name' parameter beyond its existence. It fails to indicate whether 'name' refers to a project name, ID, or other identifier, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 it is 'Read-only, REST plane' and 'Get details for one project', specifying the verb (get), resource (project), and scope (one project). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like project_list (which lists multiple projects) and project_create (which creates).

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 implies usage for retrieving a single project's details. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer its use case from the sibling tools context. A lower score is avoided due to the lack of explicit exclusions.

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