get_project

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses a genuinely non-obvious behavior: credentials and similarly-named secret fields are stripped from entity.storage.properties, with the rationale that SaaS configs can embed real COS/S3 credentials. That tells the agent the returned document is intentionally lossy, which annotations cannot convey. It stops short of covering error behavior or access requirements, so it is not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope, followed by the redaction caveat. The dotted field path and spec-file citation are verbose but serve as verifiable evidence rather than filler, so there is little waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description should characterize the returned document's shape; it says only 'full project document' and documents the redaction, without noting what top-level sections exist or how large the payload may be. The redaction disclosure is the most important missing piece and it is present, but overall return-value coverage is thin for a tool with no output schema.

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 single project_id parameter has zero schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions the parameter, its format, or whether an ID versus a name is accepted. The redaction note is about the response, not the input, so it adds no meaning to the parameter.

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 phrase 'Full project document' names the resource and implies a complete single-record retrieval rather than a list, which an agent can reasonably contrast with list_projects. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb and never states that a single project is fetched by identifier, so differentiation from get_asset or get_job relies on the tool name alone.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this instead of list_projects when the full document is needed, or instead of get_asset for nested assets. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, so the agent must infer selection from the name.

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