rundeck_get_project

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

No annotations provided. Description indicates a read-only operation but does not disclose behavioral traits such as return format, permissions, or side effects. The mention of 'description, configuration, and creation info' is vague.

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?

One-sentence description is concise and front-loaded. However, it could include more structure without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The description is too brief given the tool's purpose. It does not specify what fields are returned, and there is no output schema to compensate. For a simple get operation, more detail on the response is expected.

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 100% for the single parameter 'name'. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema stating 'Project name'. Baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves project details including description, configuration, and creation info. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rundeck_list_projects (list) and rundeck_get_project_config (specific config).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like rundeck_list_projects or rundeck_get_project_config. The usage context is implied but not explicit.

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