project_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions retrieving metadata but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage hint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to scan.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks behavioral details and output information. For a metadata retrieval tool, this is minimally viable but leaves gaps in understanding the full context.

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 description doesn't mention parameters, but the input schema has only one parameter (project_id) with 0% schema description coverage. Since there are zero parameters documented in the schema, the baseline is 4, as the description doesn't need to compensate for missing param info. However, it doesn't add any semantic context about the project_id 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 'retrieve' and the resource 'project metadata', specifying concrete attributes like name, terms count, and last activity. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on metadata retrieval rather than modifications or listings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides implied usage guidance with 'useful before performing other operations on the project', suggesting a preparatory role. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_terms or update_terms, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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