get_project

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

The description indicates a read operation without side effects, but with no annotations, it carries full burden. It does not disclose potential behaviors like authorization requirements, error handling, or that the result might be null if not found. Adequate for a simple get, but not detailed.

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 one concise sentence, front-loading the action with no unnecessary words or structure issues.

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 no output schema, the description could be more complete by specifying what 'details' include (e.g., all fields). It is sufficient to distinguish from sibling tools but lacks information about the return format.

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 coverage is 100% with a clear description for projectSlug. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 retrieves details for a specific project using a specific verb ('Gets details') and resource ('Keyshade project'). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_projects (listing all) and create_project (creation).

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 implies usage for fetching a single project by slug, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives (e.g., list_projects for listing). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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