get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation ('read by ID'), which is clear. However, it does not mention potential error cases, response format, or any side effects, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is adequate.

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 very concise, containing only two sentences. The first sentence provides usage guidance and disambiguation, the second states the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool with two fully described parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it (with ID), and when to use alternatives. No additional information is necessary for effective tool invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which are minimal ('Project id.' and description of attributes). No elaboration or usage context is provided for the parameters.

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 it gets a single project by ID, using specific verb+resource (Get a single project by id). The bracketed note explicitly distinguishes from listing/searching siblings, referencing listProjectsByPortfolioId and searchProjectByName. This makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (for a single project read by ID) and when not to (listing/searching across a portfolio, pointing to alternative Beta MCP tools). This provides clear guidance on tool selection.

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