get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get details' which essentially restates the tool name and does not explain read-only nature, potential errors (e.g., 404 if not found), or what fields are included in the response. For a simple getter this is a minimal disclosure.

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, complete sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and uses minimal words to convey the core purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema) the description is minimally viable. However, it omits any detail about response structure or error behavior, and with no annotations to compensate, it is not fully complete for a read operation.

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 'The project ID' for the id parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get details of a specific project' clearly states a specific verb (get) and resource (project), and the qualifier 'specific' distinguishes it from list_projects, which retrieves multiple projects. It is unambiguous and aligns with the tool's name.

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 implies usage for retrieving one project by ID, but does not explicitly mention when to use it over list_projects or state exclusions. There is no guidance on prerequisites or alternative tools, so it meets only the baseline for implied context.

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