get_project

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Show' plus the enumerated fields (phase, missing-to-advance, linked items) make it clear that this is a read that assembles related state, which is useful context. However, it says nothing about behavior for an unknown or archived projectId, permissions, or how expensive/large the response can be.

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 efficient sentence with the core purpose front-loaded. Only 'what is missing to advance' is slightly vague and could be tightened into concrete field naming.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by naming the returned fields. It still leaves the required identifier semantics and failure modes undocumented, so it is adequate but not complete.

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% and the description never mentions the single parameter, projectId. The agent must infer from the name alone that it identifies the project, and the schema gives no format or provenance hints for the integer ID.

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 gives a specific verb (Show) and resource (a project) and enumerates what is returned: current phase, missing-to-advance items, and linked items. That makes it distinguishable from list_projects or update_project, though it never contrasts itself with project_summary, which is the most plausible overlapping sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'Show a project's status'. There is no statement of when to prefer this over project_summary or list_projects, and no prerequisites such as needing a valid projectId. An agent must infer the call context.

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