Get Project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: the set_context prerequisite and the active-project fallback behavior when projectId is omitted.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and the default argument behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-optional-parameter getter with readOnlyHint=true and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the required precondition, and the parameter fallback — everything needed to call it correctly. The only minor gap is the lack of return-shape detail, which is acceptable for a simple getter without an output schema.

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 100%, with projectId already documented as an optional GUID defaulting to null. The description's parameter guidance largely restates the schema's 'If omitted, uses the active project context', so the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description adds little new meaning.

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 and resource — 'Get detailed information about a project' — and adds scope detail ('including its environments'). It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling list tools like list_projects, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 gives a concrete prerequisite ('Requires organization context (call set_context first)') and documents the no-argument fallback ('If no projectId is given, uses the active project context'). However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_projects or get_branch.

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