get_editorial_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a non-mutating read and that it returns either the current or a specified immutable revision. However, it does not explain error behavior, permissions, or the practical meaning of 'immutable revision', leaving notable gaps.

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 filler and front-loads the core read action before elaborating on revision selection. It is compact and every word contributes, though the phrasing is slightly dense.

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?

The tool is low complexity, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of behavioral and return context. It covers what is read and how revision selection works, but omits when to use the tool relative to siblings and does not address edge cases or failure modes. It is adequate but not 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning to the revision parameter by explaining it can be a specified immutable revision or omitted for the current one. However, it does not explicitly clarify that slug identifies the project or describe expected value formats, leaving part of the burden unmet.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the resource: project metadata and a revision. This clearly identifies it as a read operation for a single editorial project, distinct from list_editorial_projects and from mutating revision tools like propose_revision or apply_revision, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it reads; it does not say to prefer this over audit_revision or list_editorial_projects, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling context.

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