Get Hermes Atlas project details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return payload (summary, metadata, canonical URL), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential error cases, authentication requirements, or any side effects, though the read-only nature is evident from the verb 'Get.' This is minimal but acceptable for a simple lookup 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 remarkably concise: one sentence for purpose and one sentence for parameters. Every word adds value, and the structure front-loads the main function before detailing arguments.

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 straightforward get-by-identifier tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value and required inputs. It does not explain usage context relative to sibling tools, but the core information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present. Given the simplicity, this is sufficiently complete.

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 description fully explains both parameters with concrete examples: 'owner (GitHub owner, e.g. 'NousResearch')' and 'repo (GitHub repo name, e.g. 'hermes-agent').' Since schema description coverage is 0%, these clarifications are essential and completely compensate for the missing schema-level descriptions.

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 function: 'Get the full summary, metadata, and canonical URL for a specific Hermes ecosystem project.' The verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific Hermes ecosystem project' are unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like search_projects and list_by_category by focusing on a single project identified by owner/repo.

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?

Usage is implied through the required parameters (owner and repo), suggesting the tool is for when you already know the exact project. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives like search_projects for discovering projects, so it stops at implied usage rather than providing clear exclusions or alternatives.

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