get_project

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

Description indicates a read operation without side effects, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden but only covers basic provided fields.

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 concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key content. No unnecessary words or 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?

Given the tool has an output schema and low complexity (one parameter), the description lists the return fields which is adequate. However, it could mention the source of project_id for completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should add meaning to the project_id parameter, but it does not explain how to obtain a valid project_id (e.g., from list_projects) or any format constraints.

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 gets one project and specifies the exact fields returned: blurb, evidence, approved bullets, and links. This distinguishes it from sibling 'list_projects' which only lists project summaries.

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?

Description implies usage for retrieving full project details, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like list_projects. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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