get_project

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

The description says 'Read', which matches the readOnlyHint annotation; no contradiction. It adds no further behavioral context (e.g., not-found behavior, auth needs), but for a simple getter the annotation already conveys the safety profile.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential operation and scope in minimal length.

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?

With one required param fully documented, readOnlyHint present, and an output schema available, the description is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly. Error handling and return format are covered by schema/annotations.

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%; project_id is already documented as 'Numeric project id.' The description's 'by id' adds only trivial reinforcement and no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the verb 'Read' with a specific resource ('a single project') and selection criterion ('by id'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_projects (multiple projects) and get_task (different resource).

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 use when a single project is needed by ID, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The sibling list makes the distinction inferrable, but the tool description itself provides no direct usage guidance.

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