get-project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the description lists the type of information returned, making the behavior clear. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, response format, or error conditions, which would be beneficial for full 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear main statement, bullet points for returned details, a separate usage section, and a parameter section. It is concise and front-loaded, with no unnecessary sentences. Minor improvement could be to integrate the parameter description more naturally.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a high-level overview of what is returned (configuration, warehouse connection, dbt details, metadata). However, it lacks specifics on the exact fields or structure, which might leave an agent needing more detail to decide if the tool meets its needs.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a detailed description of the project_uuid parameter (mentioning env var and fallback). The tool description's parameter info says 'Optional. If not provided, uses the current/default project,' which is less precise and does not add meaning beyond the schema. It actually omits details, so it provides no added value and may be slightly misleading.

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 states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific project, using the verb 'Get' and the resource 'project'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list-projects by emphasizing 'detailed configuration information' and listing specific details such as warehouse connection and dbt settings.

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 includes a dedicated 'When to use' section that clearly explains the scenario: when you need detailed configuration information about a specific project. It provides explicit examples of the kind of details returned. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly name alternative tools like list-projects.

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