Project Get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does add real value by naming the four payload sections returned. It does not state that the call is side-effect free, what happens when project_id is unknown, or whether the nested collections are paginated or truncated.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the returned contents second; no filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

An output schema is present, so return shapes need not be re-described, and the single-parameter surface is small. Still, a read tool with zero annotation coverage should say more about failure modes and parameter format than this one does.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the sole parameter and it does not — project_id is never mentioned, nor is its expected format (UUID, slug, path). The field name is self-descriptive, which prevents a 1, but nothing beyond the schema is added.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a project') and enumerates what the payload contains (config, storyboard, scenes, status counts), which separates it from action siblings like project_build or project_export. It never names a sibling to contrast against, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Get' — an agent can infer this is the read path for a known project_id, but the description gives no when-to-use conditions, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as scene_list for browsing scenes.

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