openl Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint (true). The description adds that it returns 'full project structure, configuration, and status', providing additional context about what the tool does beyond the safety profile. No contradictions with 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main verb and resource. Every word adds value without 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?

The description lists multiple components returned (details, modules, dependencies, metadata, structure, configuration, status). While no output schema exists, this provides sufficient overview for a read-only tool. However, it could be slightly more specific about the return format or 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes both parameters (projectId from openl_list_projects, response_format with enum and default). The description does not add further parameter meaning, aligning with the baseline score of 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 'Get comprehensive project information' and lists specific content (details, modules, dependencies, metadata). It distinguishes from sibling tools like openl_list_projects which list projects rather than retrieve details.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving project details when needed, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as openl_list_projects or other get tools. The usage context is clear but could better specify when to use this versus siblings.

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