Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read with no workspace restrictions. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., pagination, auth, rate limits), but none is needed for a simple getter with verbose 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It says exactly what the tool does in as few words as possible while remaining informative.

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 getter with rich schema and annotations, the description is adequate. The schema covers all parameter semantics, annotations cover safety and scope, and the tool name implies the return object. Minor gap: no explicit mention of return format or error behavior, but that is not critical here.

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 100%, with both 'id' and 'verbosity' fully explained in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate; it doesn't reduce clarity.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern ('Get a single project by id'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like project_list (plural) and project_create. The word 'single' makes the scope explicit.

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 gives a clear usage context: fetching one project by its id. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for a single-resource getter, and sibling names like project_list imply the alternative.

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