get_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that tasks are returned as summaries by default and that verbose=true yields full task data, which is valuable beyond the schema. It does not mention error behavior or prerequisites, but for a simple get operation this is relatively transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and follows with the key behavioral note about task summaries. Every word adds value, and there is 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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately outlines what is returned (tasks, tags, milestones) and the summary vs. full data behavior. It is complete for a straightforward get-by-id tool, though it does not specify the format of tags and milestones beyond naming them.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains verbose=true for full task data and implies projectId is the identifier used. Both parameters are semantically addressed, though projectId relies on context rather than explicit detail.

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 clearly identifies the verb (get), resource (project), and scope (by ID with all its data including tasks, tags, milestones). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_projects and get_task by specifying the ID-based direct retrieval and the associated entities.

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 usage for fetching a single project by ID and mentions the verbose option for full task data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like list_projects or get_task. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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