Get Redmine Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a return-format note ('Returns: Project details including trackers, categories, etc.') but does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, error handling, or any requests made to external systems. Since the annotations carry the burden, the description adds moderate value, consistent with a 3.

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 short paragraphs with zero redundancy. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a structured argument list and a returns line. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place. The format is clean and scannable for an AI agent.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the required parameter, enumerates the include options, and gives a sense of the response content. Missing details like error scenarios or authentication requirements are not critical given the annotations cover safety and the operation is straightforward. A 4 reflects adequacy without being exhaustive.

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% (both project_id and include have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds value by specifying the allowed values for 'include' ('trackers', 'issue_categories', 'enabled_modules', 'time_entry_activities') and marking project_id as required. This goes beyond the schema's generic description ('Associations to include') and helps the agent construct valid calls.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a Redmine project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the word 'detailed' distinguishes it from sibling tools like redmine_list_projects (which likely returns summaries). The return statement further clarifies scope by listing trackers and categories, making it easy to differentiate from other getters like redmine_get_issue.

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?

Usage guidance is only implicit. The description conveys that this is for detailed project info, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as redmine_list_projects or redmine_get_issue. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned, so an agent must rely on inference from the name and 'detailed' wording. This meets the 'implied usage' level but lacks the explicit routing that would push it higher.

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