get_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the id-vs-key distinction and that the output is full details, but does not mention error behavior, permissions, or access requirements. For a read-only getter this is adequate but not rich.

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 minimal and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, a second explains the parameter. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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-parameter read operation, the description covers the essential acquisition path for the ID, and the output schema supplies the return shape. Minor caveats such as invalid-ID behavior or permissions are not covered, but they are not critical for this simple tool.

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 input schema provides only a bare string field with no description, so the description's clarification that project_id is NOT the key and should be obtained via list_projects is essential. It directly prevents a likely misuse and adds meaning well 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single project's full details'), clearly distinguishing it from list_projects and other project-related tools. It is immediately obvious what this tool does.

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 clear prerequisite: use list_projects first to find the project_id, and warns that the project key must not be used. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool, but the intended call path is well specified.

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