get_project_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'get' without detailing return format, error behavior, authorization requirements, or what fields constitute 'detail.' This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety profile.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence and a brief argument specification. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the returned 'detail' includes or any additional context. With a single parameter it is simple, but the lack of return-value information or behavioral details makes it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.

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 input schema only defines project_id as a string, with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates slightly by explicitly noting 'プロジェクトID (UUID)', which informs the agent of the required UUID format, but it does not elaborate on the parameter's meaning or constraints beyond that.

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 'プロジェクトの詳細情報を取得する' (Get project detail information), which clearly identifies the verb (get) and resource (project detail). It distinguishes from siblings by implying a single project's detailed view, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other getters.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_project_kpis or get_business_overview. It only restates the purpose without any contextual conditions or exclusions, offering essentially no usage guidance.

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