get_side_project

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It indicates a read operation ('Get') and that the output includes technologies, but does not disclose error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or confirm the single-object nature unambiguously. The description is adequate but lacks depth expected for a standalone 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, focused sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key additional detail (technologies). No unnecessary words or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown here), the description need not detail return values. The tool is simple with one parameter. The description tells what the tool gets and a notable inclusion (technologies). It is nearly complete, though it could explicitly state that it returns a single object for absolute clarity.

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% with parameter 'id' described as 'Side project ID from list_side_projects'. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the parameter's purpose implicitly. With full schema coverage, baseline is 3, and no additional semantic value is provided.

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 clearly states the action ('Get a single side project by ID') and the resource ('side project'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like list_side_projects (list all) and search_side_projects (search) by specifying retrieval by ID. The mention of 'including the technologies it demonstrates' adds specific value.

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 when a specific ID is known (e.g., from list_side_projects), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_side_projects, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites. The mention of 'including the technologies' hints at return content but not when to prefer this over other get tools.

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