Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description contributes only the hint that the project must be 'registered', and says nothing about behavior on a missing project or what detail set is returned (output schema exists but the description doesn't scope it).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, though at the cost of under-specification rather than being genuinely tight. Nothing is buried, but little is said.

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?

Annotations and an output schema reduce the burden, and the read operation is simple with one required param. Still, for a lookup tool with two competing identifier params, an agent gets no help on which identifier to supply, how to obtain it, or what happens when the project isn't found.

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 only 50%: 'name' is documented in the schema, but 'project_number' has no description anywhere, and the description does not explain the relationship or precedence between the two parameters. Since both appear to be alternate identifiers, this is exactly the case where prose guidance is needed and absent.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific registered project'), which is enough to distinguish it from register_project, update_project, and list_projects in the sibling set. It doesn't explicitly name the alternatives, but the singular-'specific project' framing implicitly contrasts with the list variant.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over list_projects or search_entries, and no stated preconditions (e.g., the project must be registered first, or how to resolve a project name). Usage is only implied by the word 'specific'.

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