get_project_estimate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the return includes the active estimate system and its fields (id, name, type), and notes the ID's cross-tool relevance. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as what happens when no estimate exists or if the project is invalid.

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 concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and well-structured with explicit Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting aids quick parsing.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, return fields, and cross-tool usage. It lacks explicit error/edge-case handling, but given the low complexity and available output schema, the missing details are not critical.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents project_id as 'UUID of the project,' adding type specificity beyond the schema's generic 'string'. Yet it provides no example or additional context about where to find the ID, so it only partially bridges the coverage gap.

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 precisely that the tool retrieves the estimate configuration for a project, using the specific verb-resource pair 'Get' + 'estimate configuration'. It further clarifies that it returns the active estimate system and its ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_project_estimate_points or get_project_worklog_summary.

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 clear context by stating that the returned ID is required to call list_project_estimate_points, implying a specific use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is distinct enough.

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