Get project

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of describing the return payload and does so richly, including the non-obvious replacedClips field and its link to restore_clip. It stops short of pagination, size limits, or error behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by one routing sentence. It is dense but each clause (clip fields, replacedClips, sibling routing) earns its place; only the 'Returns the project object' sentence is slightly redundant with the opening enumeration.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the response shape, and it does so field-by-field, including the otherwise undiscoverable replacedClips semantics. Combined with the sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already states the id and where to obtain it (list_projects, search_clips, create_project). The description adds nothing about the id beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource and enumerates exactly what the project payload contains (status, settings, intro/outro, transcript summary, clips with their fields). It also names the sibling tools it is not (get_clip, get_transcript, get_project_events), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: get_clip for one clip's detail, get_transcript for words, get_project_events for pipeline history. It also states the purpose of replacedClips (restore_clip), giving a clear when-to-use signal for a downstream tool.

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