amulen_get_project

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact: results are permission-scoped to the boards the caller can see. It says nothing about behavior for an unknown or inaccessible slug, so it adds only partial context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope qualifier; no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though the space saved leaves the parameter and error behavior entirely unaddressed.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the visibility scoping. It omits the parameter's accepted format and any failure behavior, which are the two things an agent would still need before calling it confidently.

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?

There is a single required parameter, project_slug, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. An agent gets no confirmation of whether a slug, an ID, or a name is expected, nor any format example, so the description fails to compensate for the schema 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 pairs a specific verb with a specific resource ('Get a project') and adds scope ('with the boards I can see in it'), so an agent knows it returns a project plus its visible boards. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as amulen_project_dashboard or amulen_list_projects, which keeps it from a 5.

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: nothing says to prefer this over amulen_project_dashboard or amulen_list_projects, nor any prerequisite for the call. The only implicit hint is the 'boards I can see' scoping, which is about content, not about tool selection.

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