retrieve_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Retrieve a project by ID' and 'Returns: Project object', which is minimal. More critically, it lists 'workspace_slug' as an argument that is not in the input schema, misleading the agent about required inputs. It does not disclose any edge-case behavior (e.g., not-found handling, access requirements).

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 short and uses a simple Args/Returns structure, which is efficient. However, every sentence should earn its place; the workspace_slug argument is inaccurate and unnecessary, so the description is not as clean as it could be.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return format is covered), the description is incomplete due to the workspace_slug inconsistency. It also provides no context about when to use this vs. sibling retrieval tools, and the contradictory argument list creates a gap that makes the tool harder to invoke correctly.

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 does clarify that project_id is a UUID, which is helpful, but it also introduces workspace_slug as an argument despite it not being in the schema. This actively misleads the agent and detracts from the otherwise minimal semantic value.

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 retrieves a project by ID, distinguishing it from list_projects and other project-related operations. The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'project' are specific, and the 'by ID' qualifier makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 is implied: you use this when you have a project ID and need the full project object. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_projects or other retrieval tools, nor any exclusions.

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