get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, and 'complete' indicates the full record is returned. It does not cover error behavior when the project is missing, but for a simple getter this is a minor 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 a single, short sentence that earns its place. It front-loads the action ('Read'), the object ('complete local project record'), and the scope ('local') without any filler or repetition.

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 simple read operation with one clearly named parameter and an output schema present, the description provides sufficient context. It does not need to explain return values, and the main omission—explicit usage boundaries—is minor for this tool's complexity.

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 provides only 'project_id' with no description, and the tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name and the tool's purpose, but the description does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('complete local project record'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all calculation, creation, or drafting operations rather than retrieval.

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 clearly implies that the tool is used to retrieve an existing project's full local record, providing enough context for an agent to select it over creation or calculation tools. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives by name.

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