projects_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), implying a safe read operation, but does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, mention authentication needs, or describe error behavior. This is adequate for a simple retrieval but lacks depth.

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?

Single sentence, 14 words, no filler. Purpose and HTTP method are front-loaded. Every word serves a 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, output schema exists), the description covers the core purpose and HTTP method. It does not mention return value structure (covered by output schema) or error cases, but is complete for basic usage.

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 100%, so the schema already documents project_id as an integer ID. The description adds no additional meaning (only shows the endpoint placeholder). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool shows information about an individual project, using the specific verb 'show' and resource 'project'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like projects_list (list all), projects_create, etc., by emphasizing retrieval of a single project.

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?

While implied by the required project_id parameter, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'use when you have a specific project ID; for listing use projects_list'). No exclusion criteria or context are provided.

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