fablecut_get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It describes the output format options but does not mention error conditions, permissions, side effects, or whether the operation is idempotent (implied read-only). The description is adequate but not 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and the second sentence efficiently delivers a valuable tip. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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 only one optional parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main scenario (obtaining the project with optional compact format). However, it omits details like error handling, what the full JSON looks like, or behavior when the project is missing. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 covers the parameter compact with a basic description. The description adds meaningful context: 'one-line-per-clip summary (ids, tracks, timings, non-default props)' and advises when to use each mode, going beyond what the schema provides.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'FableCut project (the timeline document)', distinguishing it from sibling tools that patch or set projects. The compact option is also mentioned, adding specificity.

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 token tip provides explicit guidance on when to use compact:true versus full JSON, which helps the agent decide the parameter value. However, it does not compare against sibling tools like fablecut_status or fablecut_analyze_reference, so usage boundaries are not fully delineated.

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