Base Wework Get Project Detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns a complete project view including all tasks/subtasks and is time-scoped, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not discuss authentication, pagination, or side effects, but 'view' and the 'get' naming imply a read-only operation.

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 entire description is one efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key scoping detail. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary explanation.

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 low parameter count, the presence of an output schema, and sibling differentiation, the description is mostly complete for invocation. It lacks explicit alternative routing and parameter format details, but those are not severe gaps for a straightforward read-style tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by linking start/end to a defined time range and implying that id identifies the project. However, it does not explain date formats or the role of access_token, leaving some parameter semantics under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('Xem' = view) and a clear resource ('chi tiết đầy đủ của dự án' = full project details), and it explicitly scopes the result to include all tasks and subtasks within a time range. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_project_summary and list_tasks_by_project.

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: use this tool when full project detail including tasks and subtasks over a time range is needed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case.

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