Get Project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP endpoints used (GET /v1/keys, fallback to GET /v1/tables), return shape, and implicit auth dependency. Missing edge cases like error handling, but otherwise thorough.

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?

Well-structured with headers and bullet points. Front-loaded with purpose and use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the API calls, return shape, use cases, and explicit sibling differentiation. Only minor gaps like error codes.

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?

No parameters exist in the input schema (0 params), so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none needed, but it implicitly explains the auth context ('using the current API key').

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 returns the RawTree project identity using the current API key, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from list-tables by stating 'NOT for: Listing tables inside a project. Use list-tables for project data.'

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' bullet points and a clear 'NOT for' section with a named alternative (list-tables). This gives strong guidance on appropriate usage context.

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