get_project_configuration

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation ('return') but doesn't explicitly state idempotency, side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The example hints at the kind of data but lacks thoroughness.

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 very short (one sentence) with no wasted words, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is front-loaded with purpose but lacks parameter info and usage context.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown) and only one parameter, the description is still incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' includes beyond one example, nor how the output relates to other project data. Compared to richer sibling descriptions, this tool lacks context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and no parameter clarification in the description, the agent receives no additional meaning about the 'project' parameter beyond its type and requirement. The description should indicate expected format (e.g., ID, name) or source.

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 returns project-scoped configuration and gives a concrete example ('internal comment support'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project or get_instance_configuration. However, it could be more specific about the range of configuration items returned.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_project, get_instance_configuration). There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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