neon_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on authentication requirements, what happens with the optional api_key, or rate/scope constraints on a live external API.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler — appropriately sized and easy to scan. It is efficient but borders on under-specified rather than maximally 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 read-only lookup with annotations covering the safety profile, this is minimally adequate. With no output schema, though, the description should say what 'details' comprises (connection URIs, region, org, branch defaults) so the agent knows whether the response answers its question.

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 coverage is 50%: project_id is documented in the schema as 'Neon project ID', but api_key has no description anywhere. The description supplies no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented credential parameter, which is the one an agent would most likely get wrong.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Get details for a specific Neon project' — so an agent knows exactly what the call retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related neon_list_projects, leaving the singular/plural split to inference from the names.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool versus neon_list_projects (to discover IDs first) or neon_list_branches / neon_execute_sql. The single sentence gives no preconditions, ordering advice, or exclusions.

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