asana_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response merges custom_field_settings and sections, which is useful behavioral context. It does not discuss pagination, errors, or permission requirements, but those are less critical for a read-only fetch.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste; it front-loads the main purpose and then specifies the key additions. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only annotations and the clear statement of what is returned (project plus custom_field_settings and sections), the description is nearly complete. Minor missing context about output structure or error behavior is not critical for this simple fetch tool with no output schema.

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%: project_gid is described as 'Project GID' and opt_fields has a detailed description. The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Fetch'), resource ('one project'), and specific inclusions (custom_field_settings with field GIDs + enum option GIDs, plus sections), and notes they are merged into one response. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asana_list_projects, asana_get_custom_field_settings, and asana_list_sections.

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 this tool is for fetching a single project with its related settings and sections in one call, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., when you only need sections, use asana_list_sections). No explicit exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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