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 does state the return content ('full project content including all properties and sections') and points to a format spec, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention error behavior or side effects, which are gaps given the absence of annotations.

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 with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core action and accepted identifier types, and the second sentence provides a pointer to format specifications. Every word adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is nearly complete: it states the resource, the identifier types, and what the return contains. The pointer to the project-format guide adds valuable context. It omits potential edge cases like partial title matches, but for a getter tool this is minor.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'identifier' with a description identical to the tool description ('Project slug, CUSTOM_ID, or title substring'). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the tool description merely repeats the schema without adding new meaning or clarifications about format or precedence. No additional semantics beyond the schema.

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' against a specific resource 'project' and defines the identifier as slug, CUSTOM_ID, or title substring. It also promises full project content including properties and sections, which distinguishes it from list_projects and search_projects. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is for fetching a specific project by identifier, but it never explicitly contrasts it with sibling tools like list_projects or search_projects. There's no 'use this when you have an identifier, use list to enumerate, use search to filter' guidance. The usage context is inferred but not spelled out.

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