get-project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description fails to mention any behavioral traits such as what happens if the ID does not exist (e.g., error or null), any required permissions, or whether the tool is read-only. This is a significant gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 extremely concise at one sentence, with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place.

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 simple interface (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what 'project details' entails, the structure of the response, or any error handling. An agent using this tool would lack crucial execution context.

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 already fully describes the 'id' parameter as 'Project ID' (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. No extra syntax, format, or constraints are 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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('project details') with the qualifier 'by ID', making the purpose straightforward. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list-projects' which lists all projects. However, it is very brief and lacks any additional context that could further clarify the exact nature of the details returned.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'list-projects' should be used to retrieve all projects, nor does it provide any prerequisites or context about the project ID. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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