Get BugSmash project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It uses the verb 'Fetch' and maps to HTTP GET, which strongly implies a read-only operation. It also discloses what is included in the response ('versions and review links'), adding useful context beyond the schema. It doesn't explicitly state side effects, but for a GET operation this is transparent enough.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Fetch details'), specifies the resource, and includes a useful endpoint mapping. Every sentence earns its place, achieving maximum 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 tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately conveys the purpose and mentions key return contents (versions and review links). While it could list all possible details, for a 'details' endpoint this is sufficient and complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter (projectId as 'Project UUID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context by mapping it to the URL path (/project/{projectId}) and relating it to the 'single project' concept, but it does not add much beyond what the schema already provides. This is sufficient.

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 tool fetches details for a single BugSmash project, with a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('BugSmash project'), and scope ('single'). It also maps to a specific REST endpoint, and the qualifier 'single' distinguishes it from sibling tool list_projects.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to get details for a single project. The word 'single' implies it is not for listing projects, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This is clear context without explicit exclusions, matching category 4.

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