get_project

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: the returned vocabularies are project-customizable, the tool returns the fields the project actually uses, and it provides the expected response shape despite there being no output schema.

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 efficient: it front-loads the purpose, explains why the agent should call it, and lists the relevant status field examples. Slightly verbose because of the enumerated return shape and status examples, but each part supports correct invocation.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, why the agent would need it, and the critical domain caveat that status values are project-customizable. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The only parameter, projectId, is fully documented in the schema as a 'Project UUID (from list_projects)'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter-level semantics and does not.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('a project's configuration') and enumerates exactly what is returned: meta, actual system-field vocabularies, and custom-field definitions. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_projects and other get_* tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent when to call the tool: before setting status values, because statuses are project-customizable and must not be hardcoded. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or list alternative tools, but the when-to-use guidance is strong and actionable.

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