asana_get_project_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the read action itself and provides no information about authentication, required permissions, return format, or any side effects. This is minimal and leaves the agent to infer the behavior from the tool name.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. However, it is so brief that it omits necessary context, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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 tool with two well-documented parameters, the description still lacks important context: it does not explain what is returned, that it requires a project status GID, or how it differs from the plural listing tool. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient to fully guide an agent.

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 100% for both parameters (opt_fields and project_status_gid), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get a project status update' states the action and resource clearly enough, but it is vague and does not specify that it fetches a single status by GID. It could easily apply to the sibling tool asana_get_project_statuses, so it fails to distinguish between them.

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. The description does not mention that this tool retrieves a specific project status by GID, nor does it contrast with listing or creating statuses.

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