Get project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a read. It omits what happens when the id is not found, whether authentication/scoping applies, and any rate or visibility constraints. 'Return one project' is a thin behavioral signal.

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 ten-word sentence with zero padding, front-loading the action and the lookup key. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns and the key used, which is the minimum viable. It does not address error behavior or result shape, leaving modest gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'id' parameter. It does clarify that the id is a 'marketplace project id', which adds useful disambiguation, but it adds no format, example, or constraints beyond that.

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?

Specifies a clear verb (return/get), the resource (one project), and the retrieval key (marketplace project id). It distinguishes itself from search_projects in spirit by emphasizing 'one project', though it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.

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 versus search_projects or list_categories. The only hint is the sibling name 'search_projects', and the agent must infer that a single-item lookup by id is the distinguishing condition.

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