project_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read operation ('read') and a live API call, implying no destructive side effects. It doesn't detail error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read tool this is adequate.

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 two sentences long. The first sentence introduces purpose and key data points, the second clarifies the live nature and key exclusion. No wasted words.

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 simple tool (1 param, no output schema), the description covers what it does, what it returns, and differentiation from siblings. It lacks details on return format or errors, but overall sufficient.

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 already covers 100% of parameters (project_id with description). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that it's an authoritative server view and no keys. Baseline 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 clearly states it's an 'Authoritative server read of a project' and lists specific data returned (name, org, tier, status, deploy, mailbox, usage). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it returns no keys and directing to project_key_cache_status/export for cached keys.

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 context ('Live API call') and directs users to alternative tools for cached keys. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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