get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets details' but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns structured data or raw text, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get details'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what 'details' include, error conditions (e.g., invalid projectId), or the return format. For a tool that likely returns structured project data, this leaves significant gaps for an AI 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented parameter 'projectId'. The description mentions 'a specific GitHub project' but doesn't explain what a projectId is, its format (e.g., numeric ID, string), or where to obtain it. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific GitHub project'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'list_projects' (which lists multiple projects) and 'create_project' (which creates new projects). However, it doesn't specify what 'details' include, leaving some ambiguity about the scope of information 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project ID), contrast with 'list_projects' for browsing projects, or specify scenarios where this is appropriate (e.g., after identifying a project from a list). The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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