get_project_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'get project detail', implying a read operation but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only, nor does it mention any required permissions, side effects, or edge cases. This is insufficient given the lack of annotations.

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 sentence with no wasted words. However, it is underspecified; conciseness is good but the content could be expanded slightly to improve clarity without becoming verbose.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should at least hint at what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., project fields, members, etc.). It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about the return value. With sibling tools providing similar patterns, the description is incomplete for the agent to fully understand the tool's scope.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter 'pno', and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description '專案編號'. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 '取得專案詳細資訊' clearly conveys that the tool retrieves detailed information for a specific project, matching the tool name 'get_project_detail'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_projects' which may return summary data. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit distinction.

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 such as 'list_projects' or 'get_requirement_detail'. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without decision support.

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