asana_get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information' without explaining what 'detailed' includes, whether pagination or field selection is supported (though opt_fields exists), or what the response structure looks like. The tool is read-only in intent, but that is implied rather than explicit.

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 a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded, stating the core action and resource. It avoids redundancy and verbosity. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one, so the structure itself is fine.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and a relatively simple tool, the description should still provide more context about what information is returned and when to use it. The vague phrase 'detailed information' does not tell the agent what to expect, and there is no comparison to sibling tools. The description is minimally viable but lacks completeness.

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 input schema covers both parameters (project_id and opt_fields) with descriptions, so schematically the meaning is clear. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema; it merely restates that a specific project is retrieved, which maps to project_id. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: to retrieve detailed information about a specific project. The verb 'Get' and resource 'project' are specific, and the mention of 'a specific project' aligns with the required project_id parameter. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like asana_search_projects or asana_get_project_status.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for retrieving a project by ID, nor does it suggest when to use search_projects or other get/list tools. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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