othos_project_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get', which is read-only, but does not mention whether authentication is needed, if authorization scopes exist, or what the response contains. Minimal transparency.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no superfluous words. Efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details like return value structure or authentication requirements. It meets the minimum but could be more helpful.

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 schema coverage is 0% (no descriptions), so the description should add meaning. It mentions 'projectId' via context but does not explain its purpose or constraints beyond what the schema provides (UUID format). No additional clarity.

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 is concise and clearly states the action: 'Get' a 'project' by its 'ID'. This distinguishes it from siblings like list, create, update, delete, which have different verbs and purposes.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like othos_project_list. Context such as prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or when to use by ID vs listing is absent.

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