asana_get_project_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a read operation ('get'), but doesn't disclose permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what the return format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to handle the tool effectively.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more specific (e.g., 'Retrieve a single project status update by its GID'). Overall, it's appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a read operation with two parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'project status update' contains, how results are structured, or any behavioral traits like error handling. For a tool that retrieves data, more context on the return value is needed for effective use.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (project_status_gid and opt_fields). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples of valid GIDs or common opt_fields values. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get a project status update' clearly states the action (get) and resource (project status update), but it's vague about what exactly a 'project status update' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'asana_get_project_statuses' (plural), which might retrieve multiple statuses versus this single one.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'asana_get_project_statuses' or 'asana_get_project'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific project status GID, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.

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