project_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It clearly states it is a read operation ('Authoritative server read', 'Live API call') and lists outputs. No contradictions or hidden effects are implied.

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, front-loaded with the most important information, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 description lists the returned fields comprehensively, compensating for the lack of an output schema. It mentions usage vs. tier limits, which is valuable context. However, it does not mention error cases or whether the project must exist.

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 schema already provides full coverage (100%) for the only parameter 'project_id', with a description that matches the tool's context. The tool description repeats this context but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 is an authoritative server read of a project, lists specific fields returned, and distinguishes itself from 'project_keys' by noting it returns no keys. The verb 'read' and target 'project' are precise.

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 as a 'live API call' and explicitly excludes key retrieval by pointing to 'project_keys'. However, it does not specify when to use this tool over similar ones like 'project_info' or address prerequisites like project existence.

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