get_project

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details parallel API calls, trigger row structure, stable key behavior, publish effects, and conversion handling. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure beyond basic read.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and provides detailed but relevant information in a single paragraph. It could be slightly more concise by splitting into sentences, but each part adds value.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure, including trigger mapping, key stability, and conversions. It covers complex behaviors and edge cases, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 parameter 'project_id' described as 'Project UUID'. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, but the overall context explains how the parameter is used in API calls. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Loads one project (draft + published trigger mapping)' which is a clear verb+resource combination. It mentions specific API calls and distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' by specifying it loads a single project with trigger mapping.

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 implies usage for loading a single project, which differentiates from list tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, or provide exclusions. The context of sibling tools suggests appropriateness, but no direct guidance.

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