Get a project

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and not destructive. The description adds that it requires 'board_or_agent' authorization, which is useful context about permissions not covered by 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 extremely short (3 lines) and lacks detail beyond the endpoint and authorization class. While concise, it sacrifices useful information, making it minimally adequate.

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 tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, the description could suffice with minimal information. However, the lack of parameter explanation and usage guidance makes it barely complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 should explain parameters. However, it only mentions the endpoint path and does not describe the 'id' parameter, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the tool name and context.

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 title 'Get a project' and description 'Get a project' combined with the HTTP path clearly indicate this tool retrieves a single project by ID. It is distinct from sibling tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_projects which lists projects, and pc_patch_projects_by_id which updates a 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not explain that this is for fetching a specific project when the ID is known, nor does it contrast with listing or updating operations.

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