get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Returns information,' which is essentially the purpose and does not detail side effects, required permissions, return structure, or behavior when both identifiers are provided. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

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, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter tool, providing the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

Despite the simple nature of the tool, the description lacks details about what 'information' is returned, which of the two optional parameters should be supplied, or how this tool relates to siblings like get_project_list. The lack of an output schema makes the vague 'information' more problematic, leaving the agent without enough context to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters (projectId as numeric ID, projectKey as string key), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies as the schema already handles semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('a specific project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project_list. The phrase 'specific project' unambiguously signals a single-resource lookup, which differentiates it from other project-related tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_project_list or get_project_users. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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