Get Project Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description's main job is to add context beyond safety. It does add return-content context ('full project structure, configuration, and status') but does not explain how the 'include' expansions modify the response or what 'deleted' or 'descriptor' mean. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and scope. There is minor redundancy between 'comprehensive project information' and 'full project structure,' and 'status' appears only in the second sentence, but overall the text is efficient and not padded.

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?

Basic invocation is clear: projectId is required and response_format is documented. However, with no output schema, the description does not adequately explain how the include options affect the returned data, nor does it clarify the difference between json and markdown outputs beyond what the schema already says. Given the large sibling set, some routing ambiguity remains.

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%, and the schema already provides strong descriptions for projectId and response_format, plus the enum for include. The description adds only generic references to modules and dependencies, which are not clearly mapped to specific parameters or include values. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 and resource ('Get comprehensive project information') and identifies the broad scope: details, modules, dependencies, metadata, structure, configuration, and status. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as openl_project_status or openl_list_project_modules, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It does not mention that openl_list_projects supplies the projectId, nor does it note that openl_project_status or openl_list_project_modules might be more targeted for narrower needs. An agent is left to infer usage from the generic 'get comprehensive project information' phrasing.

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