Base Wework Get Project Summary

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

The description indicates a read operation via 'Xem' (view), which implies non-destructive behavior, and mentions the summary nature of the result. With no annotations, however, there is no disclosure of auth expectations, error cases, or behavior on unknown or invalid Project IDs; the description carries only a minimal burden.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object; no filler or repetition. It is appropriately concise, though its brevity contributes to the semantic gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

For a simple get-by-id operation the description is minimally viable, and an output schema is present to define return values. However, the lack of any note about access_token, sibling differentiation, or error behavior leaves the context incomplete for an agent choosing among many project tools.

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%, and the description only clarifies that `id` is a Project ID. It says nothing about the optional `access_token` or accepted id formats, so the description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of property documentation.

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), a clear resource ('thông tin tóm tắt của một dự án' / project summary), and the lookup key (Project ID). It clearly states what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling base_wework_get_project_detail or base_wework_list_projects, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 given about when to choose this over base_wework_get_project_detail or base_wework_list_projects, nor any exclusions or preconditions. The only usage cue is 'theo Project ID,' which specifies the input but not the decision context.

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