Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – nothing about what happens with an invalid or missing project_id, or error behavior – so it earns little credit here.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or redundancy. It is terse, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than excess.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, given the crowded sibling set and zero parameter documentation, the description is thinner than ideal but minimally sufficient for a straightforward fetch-by-ID operation.

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 schema documents nothing about project_id beyond its string type. The phrase "by ID" hints that the parameter is an identifier, but the description gives no format, source, or validity constraints for that ID, leaving most of the semantic burden unmet.

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 a specific verb and resource ("Get project details") and scopes it to lookup by ID, which is clear enough to select. It does not, however, distinguish this from sibling tools like dida365_get_project_tasks, dida365_list_projects, or dida365_get_task, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or authorization information, and no mention of alternatives such as list_projects for enumerating projects vs. fetching a single one. The agent must infer the appropriate context entirely on its own.

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