get_project

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

The description reveals the return value includes 'project details including source repos, destinations, and roles', adding behavioral context beyond the implied read-only nature. No annotations exist, so this is adequate.

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, with two sentences for the main purpose, then clear arg/return sections. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description sufficiently summarizes return values. It covers the main functionality for a two-parameter getter, but could mention error scenarios or that the project must exist.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explicitly clarifies both parameters: 'connection_name' as the Argo CD connection name and 'name' as the project name, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'project', distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_application or get_cluster.

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 argument details but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects or get_application. No context on when not to use it.

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