tc_get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by specifying the return contents ('complete project JSON including rootId, license info, counts and settings') and noting it is the raw API object, which goes beyond annotations.

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 three lines: a clear purpose sentence, an args line, and a returns line. No fluff; every sentence earns its place with useful, non-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 simple read operation with robust annotations and an output schema, the description fully conveys the tool's function and return value. The cross-reference to tc_list_projects for the ID ensures the agent knows how to obtain the required parameter, making this complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides actionable semantics by stating that project_id comes from tc_list_projects, telling the agent where to source the ID. However, it doesn't specify format or constraints beyond the schema's string type, a minor gap given only one parameter.

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 opens with 'Get full details of one project (raw API object)', which clearly identifies the action (get), resource (project), and scope (full details of one). This distinguishes it from siblings like tc_list_projects (which lists projects) and tc_get_file (which gets files).

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?

It instructs the agent to obtain project_id from tc_list_projects, establishing a clear prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it has clear context but no explicit exclusions.

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