Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: foreign or wrong-typed IDs are returned as not found rather than raising errors, and ownership is part of lookup semantics.

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?

One concise sentence with a semicolon-separated addition, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. Every word adds meaning.

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 single-parameter getter with strong annotations, the description covers purpose, ownership scope, and the not-found edge case. No output schema exists, but the implication that the Project object is returned is sufficient for a getter.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. While 'owned Project' and 'wrong-typed Container' provide some semantic context for the project_id parameter, the description does not explicitly explain the parameter's UUID format or that it identifies the project to retrieve; the schema's field name and format carry most of that burden.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'Project' and scope 'owned', clearly distinguishing it from list operations and from get_container/get_task siblings. The added note about foreign/wrong-typed Containers being treated as not found further clarifies what this tool does not return.

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?

It clearly states this is for retrieving a single owned Project by ID, and the 'wrong-typed Container' note signals it is not appropriate for Container IDs. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_projects or get_container, but the usage context is evident.

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