get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states that the result is a 'compact project summary', which hints at the response being a summary rather than full details. However, it doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, any authentication needs, or what happens if the project is not found. For a simple read operation, the description is adequate but could add more behavioral context (e.g., success/failure behavior, related data included). This is a reasonable middle score considering the simplicity.

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: two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides parameter usage details. It is front-loaded with the most important information. This is a model of efficiency.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. The description covers the purpose and parameter semantics. It might benefit from mentioning what 'compact' means or if there are any typical use cases, but given its simplicity, this is largely complete. The only gap is behavioral transparency around error conditions, but that's minor. This is above average.

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 has a single parameter 'project' with no description (coverage 0%), so the description must add meaning. It does so effectively: it explains that 'project' can be a numeric id (e.g., 7) or an identifier (e.g., 'my-project'), and explicitly states it is not a display name. This adds crucial semantic detail that the schema lacks. Given the low coverage, this is very helpful and earns a 4.

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: 'Get a compact project summary by id or identifier.' It specifies the resource (project) and the action (get), and the input method distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects (which lists projects) and get_project_configuration (which retrieves configuration). The phrase 'compact project summary' sets clear expectations.

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 clear context: it explains that the parameter can be a numeric id or identifier, and explicitly notes what it is not (not the display name). While it doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use this, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when wanting a project summary by id. It also differentiates from list_projects implicitly. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, which prevents a 5, but this is high quality.

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