get_project

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the notable behavior that the result includes both workspaces and sources, which is useful context beyond a plain 'get project.' It does not mention permissions, errors, or side effects, but the verb 'get' clearly implies a read-only operation, and an output schema exists to cover return structure.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and object. The added detail 'including its workspaces and sources' is informative and compact, with no filler or 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?

For a simple read operation with one required integer parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and notes the inclusion of related resources. It does not discuss limitations or alternatives, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema make this a minor omission rather than a critical gap.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the lack of parameter details. However, it only says 'specific project,' which implicitly points to the project_id parameter but adds no meaning about the ID's type, format, or how to obtain it. The single parameter is self-explanatory from its name, but the description does not add significant value beyond the schema.

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 'Get details for a specific project' with the specific verb 'get' and the resource 'specific project,' then adds 'including its workspaces and sources' to clarify scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects (which lists all projects) and get_workspace (which retrieves a single workspace).

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 phrase 'a specific project' implies that the tool should be used when you already have a project ID and need details for one project, as opposed to list_projects for all projects. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named.

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