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 only states that the tool 'returns information,' but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling, required permissions, rate limits, or whether it has side effects. For a read tool, this is minimal but acceptable, yet it lacks depth.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, but it could be slightly more structured by indicating what kind of information is returned.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe what fields are returned or the format of the response. For a tool that retrieves a project, more detail is needed to inform the agent of the expected output structure.

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 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. The baseline is 3, and since the description does not enhance parameter understanding, it remains at 3.

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 returns information about a specific project, using a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('information about a specific project'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_project_list, which might return multiple 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_list or get_issue. With many get_* siblings, the description should indicate that this tool is for retrieving a single project by ID or key, but it omits such context.

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