get_project

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden. It states a read operation but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what constitutes 'details'. The absence of output schema further obscures return format.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could incorporate more context without becoming lengthy.

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 nature of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it fails to specify what properties are returned, which for a 'get' operation is a notable gap.

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 single required 'uuid' parameter described as 'Project UUID'. The description adds no additional meaning, but the baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage.

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 project details' clearly indicates the tool retrieves project information. While it's minimal, it differentiates from sibling tools like create_project, update_project, and list_projects by using a specific verb (get) and resource (project).

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 like list_projects or get_application. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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