get_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does ('Get detailed information') and what it returns, implicitly indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose behavior on nonexistent projects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences: the first precisely lists the purpose and return fields, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place; no fluff 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 2-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It lists all return fields, clarifies the parameters are aliases, and gives usage advice. No significant gaps exist.

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% for both parameters, with descriptions for owner ('Project owner alias') and project ('Project alias'). The description reinforces these are aliases but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema. 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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'detailed information about a specific GitFlic project', and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, description, default branch, language, topics, transport URLs, visibility). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects which list multiple projects, and search_projects.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this to get project metadata before performing other operations', giving clear context on when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is well-defined and helps the agent decide.

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