get_project

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Get project,' which implies a read operation but discloses nothing about return format, error behavior, or the role of the expand/properties parameters. For an unannotated tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 under-specified rather than genuinely concise. At two words, it restates the tool name and provides no structure or prioritized information, so it does not earn its place as a helpful definition.

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 and no annotations, the description should indicate what a caller receives and how optional parameters affect the response. 'Get project' leaves all of that implicit, so an agent is under-informed despite the schema's parameter coverage.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the high schema coverage satisfies the baseline of 3.

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 'Get project' simply restates the tool name, replacing the underscore with a space. It adds no new information about what kind of project, whether it is by ID or key, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_all_projects or search_projects.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_all_projects, search_projects, or get_project_components. An agent must rely solely on the tool name and schema to infer appropriate usage.

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