Get project

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly states 'Read-only', which is the key behavioral trait. It also lists the return fields. It does not mention potential errors or permissions, but for a read operation this is sufficient.

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 sentences long, with the first stating the core function and the second adding context. No wasted words; front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (1 param, no output schema), the description covers the return fields, read-only nature, and use case. It could be improved by mentioning error handling or permissions, but it is mostly complete.

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%, so the parameter is already well-documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'Returns ... for a project key' is redundant with schema description).

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 explicitly states that it returns Zephyr project metadata (Zephyr id, Jira project id, key, enabled flag) for a project key, and the utility is clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_test_case and list_story_test_cases by focusing on project-level metadata.

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 indicates it is useful for resolving keys and scope during a review, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives among siblings.

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