Get Project Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint as true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns full project structure, configuration, and status, but does not elaborate on potential side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The description adds moderate value beyond 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 a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope. It is front-loaded and without unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'comprehensive' means.

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, the description should provide sufficient information about the return value. It mentions modules, dependencies, metadata, structure, configuration, and status, which is adequate but somewhat vague. More specific details about the structure or typical fields would improve 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%, with descriptions for both 'projectId' (exact value from openl_list_projects) and 'response_format' (enum with defaults). The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves comprehensive project information including details, modules, dependencies, and metadata. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('project information'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like openl_project_status or openl_get_project_agent_context by emphasizing the comprehensive nature.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like openl_list_projects or openl_get_table for other types of project data retrieval.

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