get_project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing behavioral: no error behavior for an unknown id, no note on permissions, and no hint at the shape of the returned project data even though no output schema exists.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the key qualifier ("by id") up front. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 one-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation, the minimum is met. But because there is no output schema, the description should ideally indicate what a project retrieval returns; "parameters" is too thin to fill that gap.

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 a single parameter, so the schema fully documents projectId. The description's "by id" merely restates the parameter name and adds no format, source, or constraint detail beyond it.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Get") with a resource ("project") and scopes to a single record by id, which is enough to separate it from get_projects. However, "project parameters" is vague about what is actually returned (settings? fields? metadata?), and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like get_project_queues or update_project.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_projects, update_project, or the queue-scoped getters, and no stated preconditions (e.g., valid project id, permission requirements). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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